As an Anarchist who has lived without Rulers* for over a decade, I feel compelled to point out that as a former Libertarian for over twenty years, that Libertarians are, if honest with themselves, Anarchists with training-wheels. *I haven't filed a tax return since 2007 when I was forced to re-file amended returns going back seven years based on a former spouse retroactively changing filing status from Married-Joint to Married-Separate without my knowledge. I've worked independently, invoicing my clients, no longer register my personal property with the state (US or others), I am a founding member of a Common Law Assembly that is replacing the corrupt State apparatus in my locale and look forward to the impending collapse of all (tyrannical) states. I and many in our "Anarchist" communities are establishing our sovereignty "of our own accord," just like the tyrannical NGOs such as the UN, WHO, CFR, WEF and IMF have. We, as a community don't agree on everything, nor do we expect others to agree on everything - We hold the individual ABOVE the fictions of government, corporation, society and even community, for each of these is a fictional abstraction that purports to describe countless individuals who cannot possible be amalgamated into anything representing it's constituents. Eggs, ham, onion and cheese may make an omelet, but an omelet is not eggs, ham, onions or cheese. The most dangerous superstition is that anyone has the Right to Rule over another. After thousands of years, enough is finally enough.
The question is, Anarchy will commit a rule of "How to Deal eith Criminals?" cuz I don't see Anarchy dealing with actual criminals. Especially the psychotic people
Yeahhhh... About that... Humans kinda want to have power. If you dont have a state, someone with one is gonna come over to your place and make one. One with an organized army, logistics, supply and industry. In a matter of years your anarchy will not exist.
@@aurelian2668Not to mention that it's also human nature to look for a leader and to be ruled over. Not everyone is made to be a leader. If Anarchy is going to work, it has to be a constant practice through conscious choice.
People who believe this stuff works always seem to be raised in rich countries and have rich backgrounds - you follow this ideology because you can afford to... it'll never really work at scale
@Utkarsh Dharmadhikari By following trades do you mean copying her trades,as its done in etoro? Are you giving her your money or the money stays on your account? I have heard about copying trades but have not looked into it but I have an idea of what it is.
@Utkarsh Dharmadhikari I'm glad you advised to look her name online to see her portfolio,this is very important, making your own research is very essential. Thank you so much.
This is a series about a CONVENTION on anarchism, NOT an examination of an experimental anarchist community. If the producers wanted to make a film about an upstart anarchism community, why didn't they make a film about Galt's Gulch Chile. Now, granted, that little experiment was fraught with its own controversies, but at least it would have been closer to what the producers say they are presenting here. But the real problem with this series is the lack of balance. It focuses on a handful of bottom feeders and scam artists, drug dealers and drug addicts and presents them as an accurate cross-section of the entire community interested in anarchism that attended the conference. I'm willing to bet not everybody that made the trip to Acapulco was a drug dealer, drug addict and/or scam artist but they sure made it look that way. But as the director admitted, he was interested in a handful of people. They were the most salacious stories and, as you might imagine, that sells more subscriptions to HBO than a balanced report. I fully expect the producers to find a family of drug addicts and mentally ill vets in some American community and, using film of the worst moments in their lives, sell it to some streaming service calling it "Democracy".
The organizers of the event are the main focus of the show. Not sure if there were more offshoots of the conference than those done by the murder victim and his girlfriend (committed potheads) but they seemed like pretty big personalities that were dominant at the event before the HBO worth tragedy went down. The main event’s organizers also being heavy drinkers (alcoholics by most modern definitions) is the way it looked like AFAICT. One of them dies from alcoholic cirrhosis and the head honcho is frequently piss drunk during parts of the conference when most others are dead sober. If there were a ton of other big personalities (I.e. the unschooling advocate) I’d presume the film maker had other footage of them as he started the project before HBO took interest for the $$. Only after the murder was he motivated to edit the show for sale to a mass market audience. That’s how it goes down a lot of the time and I’d guess this time would be similar.
There have been many 'experiments' in various forms of anarch-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc over the decades since the 1960s in the USA. They do not have a high success rate, actually, I am not aware of any that even survived 1 generation. I could be wrong, as a successful commune would probably be a really quiet one.
@@fortusvictus8297 every time you do anything without the threat of violence forcing you, you are doing anarchism. anarchism is default; govt has only been around for several hundred years at this point. before that, anarchy. you really are way , way off. anarchy - no rulers. nothing more, nothing less.
This title is misleading. Anarchapulco is a friggin festival/conference. It’s not an anarchist society! The guy got killed in Acapulco Mexico. There was nothing anarchic about the society he died in.
The only anarchist society is inside prisons and in the aftermath of major wars. Hundreds of years of newsprint in Google archives shows all, repeat ALL, anarchism is violent communism and always has been. The recent fake libertarianism is Trojans, infiltrators and agents provocateurs sent by the opposition to make Libertarian candidates lose voters.
Yes the conference itself does not constitute a community but the community emerged from the conference itself. I can't say how many are still in Acapulco today but I can tell you, from first hand experience, that there was at one time a small community of Anarchists living in Acapulco year-round.
@@wolflarson71 i notice fbi/irs/cia/msm all give double standards to political families deeply involved with kill iraq/libya in particular when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0 recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election 1oo george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support = 1. ua-cam.com/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/v-deo.html 2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria ua-cam.com/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/v-deo.html current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y= 2. ua-cam.com/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/v-deo.html 3. ua-cam.com/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/v-deo.html
Todd doesn't see a contradiction between "individualism" and "collectivism". In a way, there need not be. What's good for the individual, e.g., rights, will benefit all. But collectivism is not defined well; it's rather a general, loose, abstract sense of consensus. And consensus evolves, e.g., today's consensus is tomorrow's crime. Collectivists once believed slavery was moral, practical. They still do, but not based on color. Being controversial in the extreme may be punished by death or doing nothing may be fatal, if your death is deemed to be for "the common good". The right to life is sacrificed to the will of the people, the general welfare, the collective.
I always say the greatest collective societal good is the uninterrupted autonomy of the non-victimizing individual, because interruption of that individual's autonomy without Just cause is anti-social behavior, and therefore logically degrades, deforms, and destroys society, which is not positive for the collective good. As we approach individualism, we approach the best collective result possible.
Unfortunately, there will be bad individuals who somehow think that they deserve freedom but still treat their fellow human beings like slaves. This is the part where I believe the ideology breaks down. Some people will just be stronger, more clever, etc. as long as they are good people this isn't an issue. But with a few bad people, the system can evolve back into any form of collectivism. With liberal democracy, there are so many checks and balances that should prevent that from happening but even this can't protect everyone from having his rights violated. Sometimes the system even fails entirely.
@@Ninjaeule97 Liberal democracy sucks compared to eve sortition, if your goal is representative republican democracy anyway...there is cure of all ills, the point is the results of liberty are far better than the results of authoritarian control, so liberty always, if you want the best overall results. There is no perfect world...but the freest one is the best. And look into anarchist legal theory if you think anarchists want a society without law, or if you think stateless societies of the past didn't have legal order. Anthropology and history are full of examples of both theory and empirical evidence. BTW, democracies are one of the least stable forms of government in history, in terms of duration between cyclical collapses...they are all pretty young, because they never really get more than a few centuries old. The Greeks spoke to this at length, as did the Romans. A constitutional republic only mitigates this somewhat...it's still way more unstable than monarchy (who no one is proposing, I'm just saying, the idea democracy is a stable alternative to statelessness is contradicted by stateless societies that lasted thousands of years without collapse or civil war, longer than any democracy has ever lasted).
@@tonypalmentera7752 Do you live in the US? I'd say that's a liberal democracy. Granted there have been some signs of collapse but nothing that can't be fixed. Of course, you need to agree on some rules, that's what a constitution is for. But even writing that all men are created equal didn't stop slavery. When people keep breaking the laws they wrote themselves something needs to change. I live in Germany. We fell for a lot of stupid ideologies that's what I want to prevent. A lot of stuff is copied from the past. That's why our constitution is called the Grundgesetz even though Verfassung would be the literal translation. When the wall fell and people could finally enjoy some freedom we didn't want to negotiate with the former communists on what we write in that document. Extreme right and extreme left parties still get elected in former east Germany with much higher frequency. Changing the rules won't solve that problem, but changing peoples minds might.
17:48 People are confused about what individualism vs collectivism. It's not about collecting! Of COURSE you need to collect together to accomplish large goals. Of COURSE. The difference is who decides what collective actions will be taken. In individualism, it is the individual. In collectivism, it is the elites. But power corrupts, and you cannot expect the elites to bear in mind everyone's needs. They're more likely to keep in mind their own needs. Even if they are trying to bear in mind everyone's needs, they simply don't have the information and cannot gather that information in order to make the best decision for everyone. Collectivism is central planning, and central planning always fails.
How would they create an anarchist society under a sovereign government, such as Mexico? These were really a bunch of Bitcoin millionaires becoming expats and taking advantage of Mexican tax rates.
@@RoyCyberPunk what about those ex-pats living in Acapulco? The Bitcoin millionaires and the hangers-on? They claimed to be living some kind of fake ancap life under the Mexican government. What a new age scam it turned out to be.
Goes on a political interview. Refuses to answer any questions about politics. We get it. You are more interested in their personal stories and their implications on our current society. Thats not the question.
@@razorsyntax nah, you live under a government whether you like it or not. Even if you live in a commune in the desert and never see government employees, groups tend to coalesce and stratify hierarchically spontaneously. Especially groups that thrive and endure.
What made me believe in libertarianism were my hippie parents who believed in socialism. My mother was pretty strict about what I was allowed to do but my father was pretty laid back. She also was the one who voted for the most left-wing party despite visiting the DDR and being horrified about how they treated west Germans who thought that this was simply the wrong kind of socialism. I could see that what they believed in was fundamentally at odds with how they acted. I have since come to the conclusion that every ideology has its flaws but the more you believe in one being the ultimate truth the worse things tend to get.
I grew up gobbling up rhetoric that socialism/communism was the only just system and believing in changing capitalism wholeheartedly. I had read nothing about human nature and its shortcomings. Now that I have, I realize how naive I was to think that we could make policing obsolete letting anarchists/communists who promote the honor system can only work among the lower classes; forgetting human nature is not exclusive of a particular group.
Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Your parents were authoritarian and you wanted democracy. You can have democracy and socialism.
@@Itsmespiv4192 In an imperfect term?: Opportunism. Human behavior over time can be best described by that word, though not universally across individuals.
@@IreFang No you cannot, you cannot place the collective above the individual and then claim the primacy of individual rights. Unless of course, you speak of True Democracy, which is really just tyranny of the majority...so yeah, that way maybe. But in any system which tolerates liberty, collectivism is a constant problem and vice versa.
I feel like humanity is always 'experimenting with alternative living', and it always returns to the ambitious who seek power and move to control everything they can.
I've been part of an anarchist collective and have volunteered consistently at another, they always fall apart and crumble because of corruption. It doesn't work, authoritarianism always emerges. Because people are inherently unequal, inequality increases at a rapid rate because of the lack of checks and balances around its core principle of autonomy.(To me autonomy is irreconcilable with collectivism) Someone will always be at the top or will be appointed to the top. This has taught me that humans need hierarchy, they crave it.
Plus, anarchy, like socialism, fundamentally misunderstands human behavior. After all, if there is no government then what happens to the nuclear family? It is by definition a form of government.
They definitely explore people’s needs for hierarchy. The organizers of the event have a bit of a feud about who was responsible for the overarching logistics which leads to one of the big character rifts depicted in the show. One of those characters ends up drinking themselves to death by the end of the show. The other is likely more slowly drinking themselves to death as he milks his position of authority for every last cent/crypto coin/peso. Weird seeing this kinda thing on TV and I think the documentarian does a noble job trying to make an interesting story out of the mess.
@@woodygilson3465 theyre anarchist in nature but they're really just Zapatistas! Like many autonomous zones in the world they are just sort of their own stand alone thing, like many groups can be described as marxist but function in ways that resemble the ways their people had always organized since their existence. I like to think these ways of living come very naturally to people
By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
"They Tried..."?? No! Anarchists, mostly non-violent ones (not pacifists), got together to be around others who were more like them than the society they lived in. When you go to a convention (ComicCon?) are you trying to create a new society? No. You go to enjoy the company of like-minded people. At Anarchapulco people discuss living freely, perhaps someday in a community dedicated to self-government.
@@SirBlackReeds i notice fbi/irs/cia/msm all give double standards to political families deeply involved with kill iraq/libya in particular when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0 recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election 1oo george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support = 1. ua-cam.com/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/v-deo.html 2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria ua-cam.com/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/v-deo.html current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y= 2. ua-cam.com/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/v-deo.html 3. ua-cam.com/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/v-deo.html
@@SirBlackReeds I think more like, as in, "the government is made up of the individuals who are governed by it". Like the democratic ideal, if you will. A government that is, in theory, truly representative of the will of its people, and self-organizing, at that.
@@SirBlackReeds As in the government is a bunch of services...some we want in the consumer market, some we do not...the ones we do not are out...the ones we do, they are demanded, so the market can provide them...so as in the government is replaced, where the people demand it, by market providers who cannot extort you for money on the threat of rape cages ("taxes"), and hold no monopoly to force you buy their services either.
His conclusion was exactly what the much maligned Jordan Peterson has been saying all along: "Clean up your room ." In my own experience, that has been enough of a job, and, imo, the most important one we have on this earth.
@@paulvalentine4157 and you can't properly do that unless you successfully follow several of Peterson's rules, including having your own house in order.... making them more important as they are vital in laying the groundwork for raising children.
@@Todrick451 one engineering project I worked on was managed on a risk mitigation strategy, and it failed in large part because you don't sell risks - you sell products. You can never fully clean your room, but if you think "that has been enough of a job" taking on raising a kid will be impossible. Your job is to raise kids, everything else (cleaning your room, attaining status, engaging in civic or religious structure) is in support of raising your kid, so you must focus on getting to that point and doing that and do the myriad of other things that make that possible not just "clean your room" while I don't think it is his plan, Jordan Peterson is a pied piper
Peterson has some superficial practical advice that can be helpful for some people, but his overall ideology is incoherent nonsense based around suffering. It’s a joke compared to Objectivism, which is based on reason, productivity and happiness.
“Ideologies are fun” - I agree with this superficially, but the phrasing makes me uncomfortable. The emphasis is wrong. Ideologies can be the root of mass murder. Ideologies aren’t *just* fun. They have dire consequences. They matter, playing a huge part in humanity thriving or killing itself.
The problem I have with this guy is that he is dishonest. If you listen to his responses (word choices, vocal stress indicators, placement of pauses) and watch his body language (facial expressions, head tilt, ect.) you quickly realize that this is not a documentarian that decided to look into something while trying to be as non-biased as his camera. This is an anarchist. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, there is no real problem with a documentarian being interested or supporting what they are filming, it does raise questions and concerns about it. But maybe that's just me.
Anyone who really understands the ideology of Anarchism knows that not everyone acts in a utopian way. There will always be criminal behavior. Every iteration of an anarchic society will be dependent upon the participants, their economics, beliefs, and resources. Unfortunately, power typically accumulates to those with the fewest scruples. How people deal with that ultimately determines the stability and success of that society.
So basically, Anarchy is a Criminal run society that basically does not view criminals as bad? And theres a few ... maybe if one ruler? Man, that'll be like going backwards. Im still surprised we haven't seen Anarchy full ... yet
Nobody "tries" anarchy. Anarchy is the default state of nature all people are born into. Subservience to purported authorities is a learned behavior. Getting married or building a shed without a license is anarchy. Going shopping is anarchy. Hanging with friends is anarchy.
By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Being responsible for your own wellbeing includes having the means to defend yourself. If you live in a town where nobody gives a shit about each other, I don't think it ultimately matters how much government you employ. We all have been raised in a sick world and have our own individual baggage to bear. We have to learn to respect each other's rights for our own sake. We need a cultural revolution of individuals deciding to leave the world a better place than they found it. There is no political solution for our societal woes. The rot at the top is too entrenched to simply vote the establishment out; they will cheat, lie and murder their way to victory. We just have to change the culture or watch it all crumble.
Your politicians will definitely lie to keep being in control....but murder? And cheating - like with election results or by not following their own rules in various ways?
@@patrickday4206 Sadly psychopaths are born and not made. One person with a psychotic child will create enough influence to create a state. Or maybe a neighbor that isnt anarchic and has bigger and more powerful army. You see? It dont matter. You need organization for a successful society. Even Wolves have packs.
They basically want an gated community, which already exist all over the world, if you have the money to buy in you can live this life without creating an new society.
Anarchist infiltrators turned Rand against the LP. Her criticism is valid. Anarchism is looter violence plain and simple. The French Terror is what it is, and Dickens described it fairly.
By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
This is a hit piece because our beloved Western Hybrid Democratic Republics are Crashing and Burning and people are looking for answers. Obviously, the Fatal Flaw of the Republic is the Representative who is for sale to the largest donor. This would be near impossible in a Direct Democracy.
It inevitably became a "hit piece" because all the individuals are either pathetic or. despicable. Seems like a bunch of you wanted a propagandistic "puff piece".
@Kingfish Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you're uncomfortable with emailing, I have a NON-email option you can consider.
The US was designed around individual freedoms. The intent of the Founders was to build a limited government with very few specified obligations; chiefly protecting citizens from the nefarious acts of others. Once the Federal government decided that they could stray from their primary purpose and begin to justify many changes under the rubric of "general welfare", it began to rapidly grow in size until we arrive in current day where virtually everything we do is regulated by the government. I don't see anything novel or revolutionary about the anarchist movement today. It has been tried repeatedly with varying success; typically as soon as someone decides they are bigger, stronger, and more ruthless than the anarchists around them, things start head south. And someone - from within or without - always appears who is willing to attempt to take advantage of society. The bigger the society the more likely a bad actor will insert himself (sorry, I'm using "himself" as the generic for mankind, not in a sexist patriarchal sense). I am interested in the thought that fiat currency will necessarily be reduced in value until it hits zero. Countries constantly debase their currencies and in some cases fiat currencies can become virtually valueless (Weimar Germany, Venezuela, etc.). Does that mean that all fiat currencies will eventually become valueless? How does replacing fiat currencies with digital currencies impact nations, national sovereignty, national economies, etc.? Do nations pour resources into creating digital currency to gain an advantage on other nations? Does that potentially diminish the conceptual value of digital currency? Lots of questions on the statement that fiat currencies will eventually become valueless and the impact of that proposition.
Money is the commodity we use for exchange. All money is a commodity. The price of any commodity, produced in sufficient quantity, declines to the cost of production. I wish people would stop calling the US dollar and the Euro, fiat currencies. They are floating, debt backed currencies. Fiat currencies were those for which a government assigned a value and made it illegal to trade below that value. Outside the jurisdiction of the issuing government, the value of a fiat currency is zero.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 The US currency was backed by the value of Gold. The Gold Standard alleviated the egotistical assumptions of the value of any Country's paper currency. You can't live in a world that places one opinion over another. There has to be a metric that will eliminate the bickering.
Don't forget; how were those Individual Freedoms determined? These anarchists are rudderless or are narcissist's, maybe some are sociopaths & hopefully only a few are psychopaths. How can broken or near broken people determine a freedom...they can't, by their very nature. Anarchy is chaos; unsustainable, unpredictable, unbalanced etc. Broken people, like the Democratic Party, Socialists, The Left & Marxists; think they can solve an issue w/ their great from birth intellect & all knowing foresight(that's a sick person). You mention the Founding Fathers, how did they determine freedoms? Well, from writings; no one pulled any ideas out of their a$$ like an anarchist, or the aforementioned lost souls. The Founders did use their past personal experience w/ European Monarchies but also based their knowledge on the Christian Bible & Books of the Hebrew, Greek & Roman teachings & Philosophies. They wanted to construct the Constitution as best they could but w/ the option to create Amendments when needed. They also put checks in place to control the power of the Presidency & to apply fairness to all by creating the Electoral College. You're right, there is a place in Society/Culture for a Limited Govt. for the people. Like Trump said, His Bosses.
And look how well that turned out. The government started out "limited" then got big to what it is today. It's all, "Oh it's just supposed to protect the people! It's necessary and won't get out of hand!" Turns out you shouldn't give people power over people period which is what government is. It's people with power over other a.k.a. a ruling class which is completely unjustifiable. The problem isn't anarchy it's government as well as lack of self defense from it. You beef up the defense in an ancap society any government or aggressive entity that fucks with it gets fucked up and rightfully so. With private gun ownership as well as private protection (security, police, military, etc.) even voluntary militias why is there even any leverage that government is necessary for protection? If you truly want freedom you want anarchy, government is doomed to fail due to its inherent form, function as well as coercion.
By the way, Woody, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
The title of this video is incorrect. Anarchists (I'll just call them Anarcho-Capitalists, or An-Caps, because that's what they look to be covering here), are not technically anti-government. They are anti-State, the thing that demands a monopoly on the use of force and taxes. There are probably An-Caps who are utopians, but I think they are rare. You can't solve the "Original Sin" (or whatever you want to call it) by abolishing the State. What you can do is solve all problems the State causes (which are most of them). What you can also do is better solve the problems the State claims to exist to fix, which is to say problems of justice, which is to say violations of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), both foreign and domestic. When Statists claim something like "we need the State because otherwise there would be (various violations of NAP) and no-one would stop them", they are actually disproving their point. What they are saying is that there is lots of demand to stop violations of NAP, but then claiming that only the State can be the supplier to satisfy that demand. Well, wait, does the market satisfy demand better, or the State? The answer is obvious! In fact, if there's enough demand, and the technology exists, there *will* be a supply! Now, private law, law enforcement, and justice are things that govern behavior, they are governments. They aren't the State. Churches, societal norms, social ostracism, supply and demand, and freedom of association also govern behavior and are governments. So, the real question is, why do Statists claim that the only thing that can satisfy the massive amount of demand for justice is a permanent monopoly that, by its very nature, is unjust and violates NAP? It seems they are making the claim, not the An-Caps! As an aside, it is nice to be on the side that simply says, "No, we won't be evil to others, regardless of how 'necessary' others think it must be!"
Some humans are broken. I suggest reading about cluster B. Psychopaths and sociopaths make up about 3% of the population, and will cause trouble wherever they are. Laws are created with the intention of stopping people who cause trouble whether or not they know that only a certain part of the population causes trouble. However, these broken people ignore laws altogether. The problem is how to enforce laws to keep these people in line without putting too much of a burden on the vast majority that doesn't cause trouble, but are burdened by the existence of laws, and the abuses of the government, because the position of power attract the very people that should be held accountable. I don't see anarchy working because these broken people will abuse others and defeat the good people in detail. Limited government is the compromise that I see. The jury system is a critical part.
@@acctsys Thank you for proving my points. 1. You can't fix original sin. 2. There is a high demand for justice. 3. The market can supply justice, law, and law enforcement (it has done historically, does so now, and will do so in the future). So my question for you is simple. Why must the monopolistic State do it? You're making the claim, so you should defend it!
@@acem82 Churches, societal norms, social ostracism, supply and demand, and freedom of association are for lack of a better term, soft. What stops a person from saying I quit my subscription to the laws of A, the moment he kills another person? I'm curious about the nuts and bolts of this that you suggest. It just seems nebulous to me. I mean I could see the market for justice becoming a farce for warlords and private armies.
@@acctsys 1. Yes, those ones are soft. So? 2. What stops him? My gun. My private law enforcement. 3. This video (and channel) should give you a start:ua-cam.com/video/8kPyrq6SEL0/v-deo.html 4. Again, I'll point out that the worst any objection to private law is that it gets to be as bad as the State already is!
@@acem82 By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
@@gorequillnachovidal You must be clueless about the 2nd amendment, which is a Militia made up of Volunteers. The greatest Risk of War with another Nation is a Standing Army. We can abolish all world wide standing armies with the 2nd amendment. There would never be another standing army if every person in the planet was armed. Wow. What an amazing thought. Could you imagine the peace that would exist if every individual was armed?
@@bobann3566 you are clueless about how neutered the 2nd amendment is, did you know that the malitia had for their time privately owned battleships? A rifle is not it dude, the whole 9
The Constitution is not the problem, the problem is our Form of Government, the Republic with its corruptible Representatives and Bureaucrats who are for sale to the largest donor. Oh sure, today, they have slapped on the lipstick of Democracy to our Republics, the People get to Vote on the Representative. Well it is the Representative who makes the laws and makes war, not the people. It is time to do away with these Republics for a Real Democracy a Direct Democracy.
"No government" is an impossibility. How do people suppose such a power vacuum would remain unfilled? Better to fill it with the most beneficial/least bad government we can devise than to wait for despotism to take advantage.
@@ExPwner Okay so can you give a simple description in your own words as to how you can have effective versions of those things without government? And can you give examples of these stateless societies that have existed for centuries or millennia and how are they doing now?
Anarchy simply means "no rulers". Why is that complicated? Why should we live in a world with rulers, who use violence and coercion to force others to do things. Seems pretty simple to me that is immoral. Why most humans are not able to grasp such a simple concept is beyond me.
@@mattolivier1835 Are you shore about that? After seeing some anarchist youtubers they all dont think anarchy literaly means no rules, and the google definition agrees with the stateless meaning. If you agree with another guy you shouldnt harm each other in a stateless society it would still be anarchy.
@@1MDA I never said anarchy means "no rules". It means "NO RULERS". It comes from Latin. AN - means without. ARCHY - means ruler. Therefore anarchy literally means NO RULERS. No rulers does NOT mean no rules or no leaders. A state is made up of rulers, because it isn't voluntary. The state is NOT voluntary, therefore they are rulers. The difference between a ruler and a leader is that rulers force people to follow them under threat of violence or coercion. Leaders must use persuasion to convince people to voluntarily follow them. The belief in anarchy is the belief that ALL human interactions should be voluntary, and not based on violence and coercion. It is the belief that it is immoral to initiate violence against others. Be careful as a LOT of channels and sites have no idea what anarchy really means. A lot of them are anarcho-syndicalists. That's ridiculous in my opinion. A lot of them are socialists also. Socialism is NEVER voluntary. I believe in capitalism, as long as it's laissez-faire.
@@mattolivier1835 I cant read, sory, I failed to read the word "rulers" properly, and so I apologize for exposing you to my idiocy. Thank you for the advice, I myself hold anarcocapitalist views, but I'm very green and as knowledgable as an teenager. One could say I broke the NAP by exposing you to my poor reading skills, for real I apologise.
Talk about syndicalism. Talk about Catalonia. Talk about what we know works. Your acting like anarchist have not legitimate perspectives or have not thought of what constitutes a functional society.
By the way, Aryeh, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
To hell with Todd and to hell with Reason for not grilling him on the deliberate and biased negative view of a conference based on selected actions and words of some protagonists.
This simply wasn't even close to an attempt at Anarchy. Like Todd noticed, this place was rife with government and policemen! If there is a police force that rules your territory, how could you possibly practice anarchy, which would inevitably need alternatives to a police force? And Assurance agencies? All the classic solutions from Hoppe, Rothbard, Freidman, Hazlett, and others who wrote about stateless societies never get a chance to be put into practice.
@@pivomanslovensko Anarchy means no rulers not no hierarchy's. It's impossible to not have hierarchy. Anarcho capitalism is the only logically consistent ideology.
There are a decent number of anarcho-capitalists, like myself, who don't party. We play chess and other games. We like classical music, thoughtful movies, family, and fine dining. We might have a glass of wine with dinner, but we don't use other recreational drugs because we respect our minds too much. We tend to not smoke regularly or at all; we shower daily; and we don't have tattoos. We might own a hand gun, but we're just as likely to not know one end of a gun from another. We place high importance on conducting ourselves in an upright, proper, calm, friendly, and polite manner. But I don't suppose an annual gathering of these kind of people would have made for a salable documentary.
You sound like Hannibal Lector or Patrick Bateman so I think a documentary covering an annual gathering of such people would be very interesting indeed. Kinda like this: ua-cam.com/video/cISYzA36-ZY/v-deo.html
@@wolflarson71 ALL anarcho-anything is reheated violent socialism. It was reheated in 1971 to infiltrate and destroy the LP so The Kleptocracy may safely ignore the spoiler no longer increasing 12% per annum
An elimination of federal authority and a return to a more regional authority would fit within a syndicalist society, collectivizing workplaces with more than let’s say 200 employees thereby creating a ceiling for upward mobility while elevating base wages. That is one aspect of the society I as an anarchist envision.
By the way, Sue, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Anarchist principles have a great deal of merit. However, once you attach '-ism' to the end of anything, you have an ideology, and all ideologies are complete garbage, because they deny reality. Show me what you can practically implement, and that is all I am concerned about. I subscribed to Anarchy magazine for many years, and ordered all the back issues, and anarchists, like all nitwits of any ideology, live in a fantasyland of non-reality. The hardcore libertarians live in a fantasyland. Ideology is actually evil. Behind every -ism is a fanatic and an ideologue. In every ideology is the perfectibility of human beings, which is impossible. Have a particular bent, and live your principles to the best of your ability. The founding fathers thought the Republic would last less than a hundred years. This country was not ideologically founded. It was practically founded. You can look up -ism in the dictionary (just did) but anytime -ism is attached to any system or code of behavior it is indicative of an inflexible system of belief and is purely ideological. The word plagiarism is not ideological, but socialism is. Anyone who is willing to proclaim that they are a believer in some -ism is an ideologue to be feared. No social or political system can never function at the level where it can become an ideology, because human beings cannot be perfected, and generally they are unintelligent and lazy and inept. This is why Guy Debord had such a vicious and strong reaction to the rube who called the beliefs of the Situationist International 'Situationism' The Situationist International (1957-1972) was an international but Paris-based formation which recreated the avant garde tradition on a high plane of intelligence and intransigence. At the Institute for Contemporary Arts in 1961, one baffled member of the audience (or was he a shill?) asked the panel of Situationists just what was "Situationism" all about? Guy Debord arose to announce, in French, "We're not here to answer cu*#ish questions," whereupon the Situationists walked out.
It's not so much the anarchism or the libertarianism that is the source of the problems. It's life and humanity. The question is, how do these systems (or non-systems) manage these problems? So yes, he's right, the personal problems are the crux. People are a problem. And they're also very interesting.
The same way every other system deals with them. It's so weird that people ask "but what about the roads, firemen, and police" as if those things couldn't possibly be created without gov't with a million times more accountability and transparency, with the right to leave and stop supporting said thing on top of it all.
@@Will_JC Strange question, as I don't think my first comment makes that claim either way. Only that society could manage to come up with solutions without gov't dictating every aspect of our lives. The police definitely enforce it, regardless of whether it is properly law or a just law. I don't consider it otherwise relevant, as it is just semantics that doesn't effect reality.
TL,DR. Instead of glossing over the truth about anarchism, just let the facts in this mater speak for themselves. Of course, the murder wasn't a result of people gathering to discuss or promote anarchism, but it does reveal a natural flaw in the ideology. Anarchists don't believe in developing a method by which they can deal with these kinds of disruptive people. A lawless society is just that. Does anyone see the irony in this, people gathering in a capitalist development with rules and regulations to discuss the merits of anarchy?
"microcosm of a society" ? Likeminded people gathering in one place...but they were still living in a state. And when shit hits the fan they call Mexican Police. "issues that don't just exist in anarchy land" ? Outside of anarchy land, a veteran can get some help -treatment in state run facilities. Same issues exist in modern societies /states but anarchy land cannot deal with those issues. In the end a community can't function -exist without some level of hierarchy. Without chieftain or council or....
It is ridiculous to as the "relationship" between this murder and "anarchism more generally". The reporting concerns some kind of yearly "convention", not even an actual attempt at a collective, non-government controlled, intentional community, which would be closer to the mark at least in trying to infer some kind of conclusion about "anarchism". But most importantly, "an-archism" just means "without-centralised government". It says nothing about what types of social/self relations replaces that. There are many, many different forms of anarchism practices today around the world, and even more imaginable. The focus on "anarchism" per se is only because currently we, globally, suffer a system of centralised authoritarian abusive rule. So a key focus would of course be to remediate that problem: an-archism.
To an extent. You can't actually be "do whatever you want" with culture. Some cultures are more conducive to liberty than others. This is why Hoppe argues for right wing libertarianism as realistic libertarianism.
@@remyllebeau77 🤦No masters, no rulers is in direct correlation with voluntarism. If you are imposing your will onto someone then you are de facto acting as a master.
What do you mean “what happens”? This has been played out many many times in reality from Jonestown to various communes to the CHAZ in Seattle most recently to Lord of The Flies in literature. Now a replay with some richer people is special? “A man, pause, was murdered, big pause” Was his name Piggy, as in LoTF? Is there another guy named Jim Jones? Or Raz Simone? Who could predict that. Disgusting, Reason.
This producer is in fact quite ignorant of key anarchist principles & beliefs, despite attending the Anarcapulco event for 6+ yrs & with key access to every aspect of it. For example circa Min 22:00 he affirms that "Anarchism is an absence of systems", which is categorically not the case. Anarchism simply means the Absence of imposed rules & ruler(s), which is a completely different concept, and is repeated ad infinitum by Jeff & attendees. Moreover many anarchists aspire to coexistence within a patchwork of different societies, each with their own set of rules (such as religious beliefs, LGBTQ only, free market, mixed market, etc). After hearing his views on the subject, we gain a view as to why the documentary tended to focus on the multiple failings & dangers of living in anarchy but not enough on the benefits. Given this has aired on an old school MSM platform, who could realistically have expected any better. "We should Judge a tree by its fruits" said someone who, like Jeff & Max & Icke & Griffin & et al, also vehemently questioned everything.
So basically, a group of individuals got together to practice a social concept that turned their gathering into the equivalent of an inner city ghetto? Makes sense! It's a perfect idea! What could possibly go wrong?
This is propaganda - a hit piece on the idea of living without govt. The conference and everyone there was very different than they are portrayed in the docu-series. It shows the extent they will go to to try to convince the masses of the need for govt.
The problem with anarchy is it really is a negative connotation of the reverse concept of liberty. Liberty is taking responsibility for you and the individuals around you it is if you have a homeless problem and are person that values his own property values his community his neighborhood that person wants to get people together and fix the problem not wait for the government. Anarchy tends to focus on concept of I do what I want and if someone has an issue it's just their problem. We don't need a government for anything but the most basic things when we accept the concepts of liberty and that citizens are in control as long as we take responsibility. I believe responsibility begets more and more people that want to participate in solutions.
Who will control those behaviors? And by what standard? "Do you seriously have such faith in human wisdom that you want universal sufferage and government of all by all and then you proclaim these very men whom you consider fit to govern others unfit to govern themselves?" - Frédéric Bastiat
Not having watched the series yet, I think I’d be happy enough living under a government without most of the 3-letter agencies (IRS, CDC, EPA, CIA, etc.) , the “Federal” Reserve, and the Pentagon. But I’d want to keep state and local law enforcement strong because there will always be people stealing, raping, killing, etc. when they think no one is watching to stop and punish them.
The only way I would see it as possible that you have a government without those agencies would be if you could control where your money goes to with voluntary taxes. Problem is realistically the government would probably only make certain payments voluntary and not things like defense and so on. And I am pretty sure they would just hide those in defense spending. A start would be to get a detailed account of government spending.
Better to have everyone armed. Criminals inclinations are self checked if they believe their victim is armed, and another benefit of having the entire population armed, if a fool tries to initiate violent force or engage in coercion, they will be met with a greater force from the population itself, no need to have large law enforcement who only arrive after the harm has been done. Really, the only thing we really need are lawful Tort Courts of Remedy because we do not live in a perfect world, unfortunately the corrupt Representatives of the Hybrid Republics have totally corrupted the courts today. Thankfully it is all crashing and burning around us and in 10 years we can replace it with the final embers snuffing out out on their own. Then we can do away with Republics for good and replace them with real Direct Democracies.
@@bobann3566 Direct democracies are not really better if the populace doesn't think for themselves and just parrot the points shoved into them during government indoctrination.
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates for the elimination of the state in favor of a society based on private property, free markets, and voluntary association. Anarcho-capitalists believe that the state is inherently coercive and that it violates individual liberty. They believe that the free market is the best way to organize society and that it can provide for all of the needs of individuals without the need for government intervention. Anarcho-capitalism is a radical ideology that has been criticized by both the left and the right. Some people on the left believe that anarcho-capitalism is too individualistic and that it would lead to the exploitation of the weak by the strong. Some people on the right believe that anarcho-capitalism is too utopian and that it is not realistic to expect people to voluntarily cooperate without the threat of government coercion. Despite these criticisms, anarcho-capitalism has a small but dedicated following. Anarcho-capitalists believe that their ideology is the only way to achieve true individual liberty and that it is the only way to create a just and equitable society. Here are some of the key tenets of anarcho-capitalism: * **Abolition of the state:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that the state is inherently coercive and that it violates individual liberty. They believe that the free market is the best way to organize society and that it can provide for all of the needs of individuals without the need for government intervention. * **Private property:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that private property is essential for individual liberty. They believe that individuals should have the right to own and control their own property, and that they should not be subject to the arbitrary dictates of the state. * **Free markets:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that the free market is the best way to organize economic activity. They believe that the free market is efficient and that it can provide for the needs of all individuals. * **Voluntary association:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that individuals should be free to associate with whomever they want and to form whatever kind of communities they want. They believe that individuals should not be forced to associate with people or groups that they do not want to associate with. * **Non-aggression principle:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defense. They believe that individuals should not use force to initiate violence or to coerce others into doing things they do not want to do. Anarcho-capitalism is a complex and evolving ideology. It is a challenge to achieve, but it offers the potential for a more just and equitable society. Also it worked in Acadia and other nations tried and worked
Trying to mix the reason-loving, certainty proclaiming philosophy of Ayn Rand with the absolute skepticism of Kantian philosophy sounds like a disaster just waiting to happen. Apparently politics isn't everything and philosophy matters.
There are various levels of extreme skepticism. 3. You could disregard any analysis you yourself haven't completed as not trustworthy. 2. You could also disregard any information that you yourself haven't collected. 1. And, even more extreme, you could disregard even your own logical analysis, as you believe that logic itself is untrustworthy. (With that, you should automatically disregard your own perceptions.) I don't think the crowd at Acapulco followed any of these rules _consistently_. Maybe some have claimed that they only trust in what they themselves have verified, but I'd guess only 1-10% would do that consistently. As for Berwick being so skeptical against everything - as Todd Schramke claims at 15:56 - that is just not true. He seems to be able to accept any kind of bs, if it just presented by the right people. As for Objectivism. It's great on being so pragmatic (focused on one's life, one's happiness, and one's character necessary to navigate in the world to achieve one's goals). It's less great on being a stickler for their own very particular definitions. ;-) But mostly....if Objectivism is based on a scientific outlook on life, why haven't they come up with a plan to convince the masses of how great liberty is? Or some other plan to get rid of the injustices. That should at least be no. 10 on the list of public goods that your own community would want to achieve. I'm guessing it actually is at no. 1. And still, if you look at the strategies that have already born fruit - cryptoanarchy, convincing governments to try economic/judicial free zones - and those that seem promising - mainly seasteading - where are the objectivist thinkers and collaborators? Sure, engaging in solving politics is time-consuming, and many of the allies are kind of like Berwick....but still. Some work in it is necessary, if just to understand the system and construct a model of how one should be able to avoid/break/transform it. Or, am I missing something? Not meant as a damning criticism (unless you are all-or-nothing, of course - but then a single flaw could make it all crumble, which is not how I perceive Objectivism), but a directed one at the "certainty" of it.
@@libertariantranslator1929 If you can't hold values rationally, because you can't find necessity for them, then the only place to get them, if at all, is from others. So it's based on skepticism.
Just watched the series. Not an anarchocapitalist, but I really felt like I understood the dynamics of the situation. I think the series says less about anarchism (it could have been a film about vegans or communists) and more about the 21st century and how the systems we've created undermine community, social capital, and trust in institutions. We saw such a natural human response to these pressures. Lack of sense of meaning/purpose. Pressure to make money inside of a corrupt system. These struggles are universal, like your guest said. We express our responses a bit differently and adopt different understandings of how things got this way, but we're all feeling the same thing.
I also think of political movements as an outgrowth of this. There was a recent communist group that just dissolved due to the leader (Caleb Maupin) behaving inappropriately, abusing power etc. Nick Brana with the Movement for a People's Party was accused of something similar. And we can't forget about all the dissolved communes, raw vegan communities, and so many other groups, including churches and business leaders that inevitably run into these issues. Everyone starts off with good intentions and lofty aspirations, but eventually pretending the rest of society doesn't exist bumps into reality. p.s. I say this as a communist vegan. No hate. Just an observation that we shouldn't use failures and drama like this as ammunition in our ideological debates as some QED.
@magister343 By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
By the way, Doran, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
By the way, Dave, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
By the way, Csilla, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
@Fallen By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
What a hit piece. What is a community, a Society? A collective of individuals who come together out of mutual self interest. This Self Organization happens naturally. Self Organization is Natural Process. Government is the Legal Wrong as a Right to Initiate Violent Force and the Legal Wrong as a Right to engage in Coercion. Why? Because groups of people may initiate violent force and engage in coercion, we call the criminals. So what do the smart criminals do? They go in Government where they can legally initiate violent force and engage in coercion. Go Figure. Meanwhile, in the world of Reality, Western Republics are Crashing and Burning around our very eyes everyday from within due to the Fatal Flaw of Republics, the corruptible Representative and Bureaucrats who is purchased by the highest donor. The Anarchist should try to get behind a Direct Democracy for this is as close to the Self Rule principles of Anarchism that an anarchist can get with out becoming a lone wolf. No, we do not need to give groups of people Wrongs as Rights, that is not wise.
@archoaxu By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
It doesn't make much sense to say how "extreme" and/or "utopian" anarchism is because that very extremity is the main appeal for young males (roughly, between the ages of 16 and 25) - and a small number of older people. That is, such people are drawn to the fact that it's a kind of Year Zero world view. It makes them feel different from the Straights and highlights their own individuality... or so they believe. It also, perhaps more importantly, focusses the aggression and hate - despite anarchism's self-image of promoting peace, love, community, etc. That said, there are many brands of anarchism. Some of which aren't "pacifist" at all! I'm also aware that American anarchism is very different to British anarchism, as some of the comments in this thread show. This isn't theory. I myself was an anarchist between the ages of 18 and 23. And *all* of the anarchists I knew were anarchists at *exactly* the same ages. I very rarely came across an anarchist who was older than 23. So anarchism is largely a young-man thing; though many of the theorists (as well as leaders) of anarchism have been much older. There are other ways to talk about anarchism. So this is just one aspect of anarchism and its appeal to - mainly - young men.
@@cryptsub I was thinking about changing the genetics to make people more empathetic, more reasonable and more independent. That's only way I can think anarchy will work. Also why did you bring up lobotomy?
Looking forward to this documentary and the people's stories. A "utopia" is impossible because people will always bring their inherent sinful nature. Doesn't matter if it's a big-govt society or an "anarchist" society. Only a society ruled by Christ Himself can hope to have true peace.
So alien extraterrestrial life won't go to heaven? God created the universe, do you think God would only create humans in this vast universe? Big waste of space.
Any society ruled by Christ would have all the same human factors and human needs that make utopias an impossible fantasy. These perfect worlds are always the dreams of the anointed and the rest of us their victims.
@@allenc1570 Christ wouldn't be the problem..., people would. By the way, he isn't coming so best to set your own life in order. Living a Christian life is a valuable thing even for non-Christians.
By the way, Parker, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
"they tried anarchy". lol. what an idiot phrase. we do anarchy every time we do anything without threat of violence. ANARCHY = NO RULERS. from the greek. nothing more, nothing less. anarchy is NOT left or right. it is not communist, and it can ONLY be capitalist. inherently anarchy has the most lied-about definition today.
No society can exist without rulers, or if you want to use other words; a hierarchy. Hierarchy exists in all communities, even among animals. The first thing any animals that live together do is to establish a leader, and a hierarchy of the leaders, dogs, wolfs, cows, you name it it always happen.Anarchy is just an imaginary thing that of course can never work, anyone with a functioning logical brain understand that. Even my 13 year old boy pointed it out when we were discussing the different ways of organising a society.
@@truxton1000 societies existed before rulers. long before. leader and ruler mean different things. a leader is followed voluntarily by the individual(s) who see her as wise or experienced etc. a ruler demands authority with violence. this is all from the dictionary, ofc, so anyone who comes up with "whatever that means to yOU.." is not knowledgeable about how language works.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Well you are totally wrong, of course a small group of people can exist is a society without a formal structure. I have read something about how many and as far as I can remember it was about 50 people, any larger than that a more formal structure is needed, if not chaos will rule the world. So unless you and any other nitwhit can come up with a proper example that a large society can function with an informal structure of leaders (where people will "voluntary" follow some kind of leader without that leader having the power to punish) I will stick with my logical opinion that a society absolutely NOT can function like you describe it. You people are just like the communists, you say your way of organizing a society is superior but you totally ignore the fact that due to how humans behave it's 100% impossible. Just look around: people break the rules even if they KNOW they will be punished, what on earth do you think they would do if they knew that punishment was not an option?? Just think about that for just 1 minute! I'm sure if you REALLY think about it all sorts of things will pop up in your head. Just look what happens in a society when you have an electricity black out, in most places just that will lead to people immediately robbing shops etc, and that's just because of the fact they know a black out will make it harder to get caught, if it was "no rules" Jesus Christ it would be mayhem.
@@truxton1000 Well you are totally wrong. i read like 2 sentences of the huge paragraph and stopped. we do anarchy every day, and healthy adults do not need rulers/rules. organization is to be organic and uncentralized. otherwise you have a crappy society. anarchy = no rulers. nothing more, nothing less. capitalism is inherent in it.
In true anarchy, there is no society, no leader/follower archetypes. Which is why this is an menyacle notion, and for one to think you could have a "community " or common unity without some form of government is deranged. If everyone would take care of themselves, control their actions and such then we could possibly achieve greater things.
Sadly all it takes is one bad apple to ruin anarchy. Forcing the need for intervention. Which leads right back to community guidelines being enforced by a government.
Anarchy is the absence of a coercive state. Not the absence of any system or order.
Anarchy is the legalization of murder and institutionalization of a state of war and looting
@@libertariantranslator1929 The absence of a legalizing body is the legalization of murder? Dude, check your reasoning.
@@AF-we1zc Yo sockie. Google News archive contains anarchists... ALL communist and ALL murderers 😂
@@AF-we1zc Successful examples are not offered? Sockpuppet alert!
@@libertariantranslator1929 What? Make sense.
As an Anarchist who has lived without Rulers* for over a decade, I feel compelled to point out that as a former Libertarian for over twenty years, that Libertarians are, if honest with themselves, Anarchists with training-wheels.
*I haven't filed a tax return since 2007 when I was forced to re-file amended returns going back seven years based on a former spouse retroactively changing filing status from Married-Joint to Married-Separate without my knowledge. I've worked independently, invoicing my clients, no longer register my personal property with the state (US or others), I am a founding member of a Common Law Assembly that is replacing the corrupt State apparatus in my locale and look forward to the impending collapse of all (tyrannical) states.
I and many in our "Anarchist" communities are establishing our sovereignty "of our own accord," just like the tyrannical NGOs such as the UN, WHO, CFR, WEF and IMF have.
We, as a community don't agree on everything, nor do we expect others to agree on everything - We hold the individual ABOVE the fictions of government, corporation, society and even community, for each of these is a fictional abstraction that purports to describe countless individuals who cannot possible be amalgamated into anything representing it's constituents.
Eggs, ham, onion and cheese may make an omelet, but an omelet is not eggs, ham, onions or cheese.
The most dangerous superstition is that anyone has the Right to Rule over another. After thousands of years, enough is finally enough.
Like all soi-disant anarchists, this one is a sockpuppet. See the About field
The question is, Anarchy will commit a rule of "How to Deal eith Criminals?" cuz I don't see Anarchy dealing with actual criminals.
Especially the psychotic people
Yeahhhh... About that... Humans kinda want to have power. If you dont have a state, someone with one is gonna come over to your place and make one. One with an organized army, logistics, supply and industry. In a matter of years your anarchy will not exist.
@@aurelian2668Not to mention that it's also human nature to look for a leader and to be ruled over. Not everyone is made to be a leader. If Anarchy is going to work, it has to be a constant practice through conscious choice.
People who believe this stuff works always seem to be raised in rich countries and have rich backgrounds - you follow this ideology because you can afford to... it'll never really work at scale
The title suggests a discourse about anarchy which sounds stimulating. But that’s not what we get. What we get is, yet again, a reality t.v. show.
yes Thomas Welch you are correct …. this a bunch of meandering yakkity yack
@Utkarsh Dharmadhikari By following trades do you mean copying her trades,as its done in etoro? Are you giving her your money or the money stays on your account? I have heard about copying trades but have not looked into it but I have an idea of what it is.
@Utkarsh Dharmadhikari I'm glad you advised to look her name online to see her portfolio,this is very important, making your own research is very essential. Thank you so much.
Exactly, money is always eager and ready to work for anyone who is ready to employ it.
Are all you people bots, one person acting as many, or actually individual people? Do you think this spam really works?
This is a series about a CONVENTION on anarchism, NOT an examination of an experimental anarchist community. If the producers wanted to make a film about an upstart anarchism community, why didn't they make a film about Galt's Gulch Chile. Now, granted, that little experiment was fraught with its own controversies, but at least it would have been closer to what the producers say they are presenting here.
But the real problem with this series is the lack of balance. It focuses on a handful of bottom feeders and scam artists, drug dealers and drug addicts and presents them as an accurate cross-section of the entire community interested in anarchism that attended the conference. I'm willing to bet not everybody that made the trip to Acapulco was a drug dealer, drug addict and/or scam artist but they sure made it look that way. But as the director admitted, he was interested in a handful of people. They were the most salacious stories and, as you might imagine, that sells more subscriptions to HBO than a balanced report.
I fully expect the producers to find a family of drug addicts and mentally ill vets in some American community and, using film of the worst moments in their lives, sell it to some streaming service calling it "Democracy".
100% agree
The organizers of the event are the main focus of the show. Not sure if there were more offshoots of the conference than those done by the murder victim and his girlfriend (committed potheads) but they seemed like pretty big personalities that were dominant at the event before the HBO worth tragedy went down.
The main event’s organizers also being heavy drinkers (alcoholics by most modern definitions) is the way it looked like AFAICT. One of them dies from alcoholic cirrhosis and the head honcho is frequently piss drunk during parts of the conference when most others are dead sober.
If there were a ton of other big personalities (I.e. the unschooling advocate) I’d presume the film maker had other footage of them as he started the project before HBO took interest for the $$. Only after the murder was he motivated to edit the show for sale to a mass market audience. That’s how it goes down a lot of the time and I’d guess this time would be similar.
There have been many 'experiments' in various forms of anarch-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc over the decades since the 1960s in the USA. They do not have a high success rate, actually, I am not aware of any that even survived 1 generation. I could be wrong, as a successful commune would probably be a really quiet one.
@@fortusvictus8297 every time you do anything without the threat of violence forcing you, you are doing anarchism. anarchism is default; govt has only been around for several hundred years at this point. before that, anarchy. you really are way , way off.
anarchy - no rulers. nothing more, nothing less.
What a fraud! Objectivists were the first to notice that anarchism is communism
This title is misleading. Anarchapulco is a friggin festival/conference. It’s not an anarchist society!
The guy got killed in Acapulco Mexico.
There was nothing anarchic about the society he died in.
The only anarchist society is inside prisons and in the aftermath of major wars. Hundreds of years of newsprint in Google archives shows all, repeat ALL, anarchism is violent communism and always has been. The recent fake libertarianism is Trojans, infiltrators and agents provocateurs sent by the opposition to make Libertarian candidates lose voters.
Yes the conference itself does not constitute a community but the community emerged from the conference itself. I can't say how many are still in Acapulco today but I can tell you, from first hand experience, that there was at one time a small community of Anarchists living in Acapulco year-round.
@@salvatoremazzone6912 and they live under a government. Great success!
@@salvatoremazzone6912 They aren't anarchists. They are subject to the Mexican government and the cartels.
@@razorsyntax It has devolved into a bunch of antivax nut bags, not that it was ever a truly anarchist / libertarian society.
That documentary was more about who controls the conference than it was about anarchist philosophy
It’s ALWAYS about the guy who comes to run things, Jim Jones, whoever.
Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called narrative warfare.
So true. How was statist Mexico any different than statist U.S.? It made no sense.
@@wolflarson71 i notice fbi/irs/cia/msm all give double standards to political families deeply involved with kill iraq/libya in particular
when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0
recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election 1oo
george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support =
1. ua-cam.com/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/v-deo.html
2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria
ua-cam.com/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/v-deo.html
current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y=
2. ua-cam.com/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/v-deo.html
3. ua-cam.com/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/v-deo.html
Communist philosophy is anarchist philosophy
Todd doesn't see a contradiction between "individualism" and "collectivism". In a way, there need not be. What's good for the individual, e.g., rights, will benefit all. But collectivism is not defined well; it's rather a general, loose, abstract sense of consensus. And consensus evolves, e.g., today's consensus is tomorrow's crime. Collectivists once believed slavery was moral, practical. They still do, but not based on color. Being controversial in the extreme may be punished by death or doing nothing may be fatal, if your death is deemed to be for "the common good". The right to life is sacrificed to the will of the people, the general welfare, the collective.
I always say the greatest collective societal good is the uninterrupted autonomy of the non-victimizing individual, because interruption of that individual's autonomy without Just cause is anti-social behavior, and therefore logically degrades, deforms, and destroys society, which is not positive for the collective good. As we approach individualism, we approach the best collective result possible.
See dictionary
Unfortunately, there will be bad individuals who somehow think that they deserve freedom but still treat their fellow human beings like slaves. This is the part where I believe the ideology breaks down. Some people will just be stronger, more clever, etc. as long as they are good people this isn't an issue. But with a few bad people, the system can evolve back into any form of collectivism. With liberal democracy, there are so many checks and balances that should prevent that from happening but even this can't protect everyone from having his rights violated. Sometimes the system even fails entirely.
@@Ninjaeule97 Liberal democracy sucks compared to eve sortition, if your goal is representative republican democracy anyway...there is cure of all ills, the point is the results of liberty are far better than the results of authoritarian control, so liberty always, if you want the best overall results. There is no perfect world...but the freest one is the best. And look into anarchist legal theory if you think anarchists want a society without law, or if you think stateless societies of the past didn't have legal order. Anthropology and history are full of examples of both theory and empirical evidence.
BTW, democracies are one of the least stable forms of government in history, in terms of duration between cyclical collapses...they are all pretty young, because they never really get more than a few centuries old. The Greeks spoke to this at length, as did the Romans. A constitutional republic only mitigates this somewhat...it's still way more unstable than monarchy (who no one is proposing, I'm just saying, the idea democracy is a stable alternative to statelessness is contradicted by stateless societies that lasted thousands of years without collapse or civil war, longer than any democracy has ever lasted).
@@tonypalmentera7752 Do you live in the US? I'd say that's a liberal democracy. Granted there have been some signs of collapse but nothing that can't be fixed. Of course, you need to agree on some rules, that's what a constitution is for. But even writing that all men are created equal didn't stop slavery. When people keep breaking the laws they wrote themselves something needs to change. I live in Germany. We fell for a lot of stupid ideologies that's what I want to prevent. A lot of stuff is copied from the past. That's why our constitution is called the Grundgesetz even though Verfassung would be the literal translation. When the wall fell and people could finally enjoy some freedom we didn't want to negotiate with the former communists on what we write in that document. Extreme right and extreme left parties still get elected in former east Germany with much higher frequency. Changing the rules won't solve that problem, but changing peoples minds might.
17:48 People are confused about what individualism vs collectivism. It's not about collecting! Of COURSE you need to collect together to accomplish large goals. Of COURSE. The difference is who decides what collective actions will be taken. In individualism, it is the individual. In collectivism, it is the elites. But power corrupts, and you cannot expect the elites to bear in mind everyone's needs. They're more likely to keep in mind their own needs. Even if they are trying to bear in mind everyone's needs, they simply don't have the information and cannot gather that information in order to make the best decision for everyone.
Collectivism is central planning, and central planning always fails.
“We tried to make a new society and all we got was a stupid HBO documentary”
All these scum did was try to infiltrate the LP and drag it down. No libertarian will infiltrate an anarchist party, I'll lay heavy odds on cash bets
How would they create an anarchist society under a sovereign government, such as Mexico? These were really a bunch of Bitcoin millionaires becoming expats and taking advantage of Mexican tax rates.
It was a yearly convention/reunion there is no actual Anarchist community to speak of.
@@RoyCyberPunk what about those ex-pats living in Acapulco? The Bitcoin millionaires and the hangers-on? They claimed to be living some kind of fake ancap life under the Mexican government. What a new age scam it turned out to be.
Goes on a political interview. Refuses to answer any questions about politics. We get it. You are more interested in their personal stories and their implications on our current society. Thats not the question.
@@razorsyntax their maturity is up for debate, but a bunch of bitcoin millionaires living in Mexico claiming to be anarchists is wholly unconvincing.
@@razorsyntax yet they do live under a government. QED
@@razorsyntax nah, you live under a government whether you like it or not. Even if you live in a commune in the desert and never see government employees, groups tend to coalesce and stratify hierarchically spontaneously. Especially groups that thrive and endure.
@@cryptsub did u watch the series?
@@EducationOptions yep.
What made me believe in libertarianism were my hippie parents who believed in socialism. My mother was pretty strict about what I was allowed to do but my father was pretty laid back. She also was the one who voted for the most left-wing party despite visiting the DDR and being horrified about how they treated west Germans who thought that this was simply the wrong kind of socialism. I could see that what they believed in was fundamentally at odds with how they acted. I have since come to the conclusion that every ideology has its flaws but the more you believe in one being the ultimate truth the worse things tend to get.
I grew up gobbling up rhetoric that socialism/communism was the only just system and believing in changing capitalism wholeheartedly.
I had read nothing about human nature and its shortcomings.
Now that I have, I realize how naive I was to think that we could make policing obsolete letting anarchists/communists who promote the honor system can only work among the lower classes; forgetting human nature is not exclusive of a particular group.
@@picilocarnal What is human nature ?
Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Your parents were authoritarian and you wanted democracy. You can have democracy and socialism.
@@Itsmespiv4192 In an imperfect term?: Opportunism.
Human behavior over time can be best described by that word, though not universally across individuals.
@@IreFang No you cannot, you cannot place the collective above the individual and then claim the primacy of individual rights. Unless of course, you speak of True Democracy, which is really just tyranny of the majority...so yeah, that way maybe. But in any system which tolerates liberty, collectivism is a constant problem and vice versa.
I feel like humanity is always 'experimenting with alternative living', and it always returns to the ambitious who seek power and move to control everything they can.
I've been part of an anarchist collective and have volunteered consistently at another, they always fall apart and crumble because of corruption.
It doesn't work, authoritarianism always emerges.
Because people are inherently unequal, inequality increases at a rapid rate because of the lack of checks and balances around its core principle of autonomy.(To me autonomy is irreconcilable with collectivism)
Someone will always be at the top or will be appointed to the top. This has taught me that humans need hierarchy, they crave it.
Plus, anarchy, like socialism, fundamentally misunderstands human behavior. After all, if there is no government then what happens to the nuclear family? It is by definition a form of government.
So is your solution a minimal state that redistributed wealth to stop gross power imbalances?.. Ooor?
@@SirBlackReedshow is a family s government, isn't a government defined by taxation?
They definitely explore people’s needs for hierarchy. The organizers of the event have a bit of a feud about who was responsible for the overarching logistics which leads to one of the big character rifts depicted in the show. One of those characters ends up drinking themselves to death by the end of the show. The other is likely more slowly drinking themselves to death as he milks his position of authority for every last cent/crypto coin/peso.
Weird seeing this kinda thing on TV and I think the documentarian does a noble job trying to make an interesting story out of the mess.
Absolutely. On a micro and macro level too .
You can have an anarchist conference in Mexico. But you cannot set up a stateless society in Mexico. That's the difference.
Umm.... Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities.
@@woodygilson3465 theyre anarchist in nature but they're really just Zapatistas! Like many autonomous zones in the world they are just sort of their own stand alone thing, like many groups can be described as marxist but function in ways that resemble the ways their people had always organized since their existence. I like to think these ways of living come very naturally to people
Augustine, just curious, how did you find this video?
By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
So yuppies that want to seem edgy
"They Tried..."?? No! Anarchists, mostly non-violent ones (not pacifists), got together to be around others who were more like them than the society they lived in. When you go to a convention (ComicCon?) are you trying to create a new society? No. You go to enjoy the company of like-minded people.
At Anarchapulco people discuss living freely, perhaps someday in a community dedicated to self-government.
As in the individual takes the place of the government?
More like Doucheapulco. The only true anarchists were the guy that was assassinated and his girlfriend.
@@SirBlackReeds i notice fbi/irs/cia/msm all give double standards to political families deeply involved with kill iraq/libya in particular
when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0
recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election 1oo
george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support =
1. ua-cam.com/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/v-deo.html
2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria
ua-cam.com/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/v-deo.html
current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y=
2. ua-cam.com/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/v-deo.html
3. ua-cam.com/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/v-deo.html
@@SirBlackReeds I think more like, as in, "the government is made up of the individuals who are governed by it". Like the democratic ideal, if you will. A government that is, in theory, truly representative of the will of its people, and self-organizing, at that.
@@SirBlackReeds As in the government is a bunch of services...some we want in the consumer market, some we do not...the ones we do not are out...the ones we do, they are demanded, so the market can provide them...so as in the government is replaced, where the people demand it, by market providers who cannot extort you for money on the threat of rape cages ("taxes"), and hold no monopoly to force you buy their services either.
His conclusion was exactly what the much maligned Jordan Peterson has been saying all along: "Clean up your room ." In my own experience, that has been enough of a job, and, imo, the most important one we have on this earth.
raising your kids is the most important job
@@paulvalentine4157 and you can't properly do that unless you successfully follow several of Peterson's rules, including having your own house in order.... making them more important as they are vital in laying the groundwork for raising children.
@@Todrick451 one engineering project I worked on was managed on a risk mitigation strategy, and it failed in large part because you don't sell risks - you sell products. You can never fully clean your room, but if you think "that has been enough of a job" taking on raising a kid will be impossible. Your job is to raise kids, everything else (cleaning your room, attaining status, engaging in civic or religious structure) is in support of raising your kid, so you must focus on getting to that point and doing that and do the myriad of other things that make that possible not just "clean your room"
while I don't think it is his plan, Jordan Peterson is a pied piper
Peterson has some superficial practical advice that can be helpful for some people, but his overall ideology is incoherent nonsense based around suffering. It’s a joke compared to Objectivism, which is based on reason, productivity and happiness.
@@paulvalentine4157 Jordan Peterson isn't a salesman.
“Ideologies are fun” - I agree with this superficially, but the phrasing makes me uncomfortable. The emphasis is wrong. Ideologies can be the root of mass murder. Ideologies aren’t *just* fun. They have dire consequences. They matter, playing a huge part in humanity thriving or killing itself.
Ideologies can be fun from a purely academic standpoint but ideologically possessed individuals tend to be insufferable.
@@Strideo1 *And ideologically possessed _masses_ tend to turn dreams of utopia into nightmares come to life.
@@Strideo1 -- 100%
Unruly people scare the domesticated pragmatics. Sometimes for good reason, and sometimes not.
The problem I have with this guy is that he is dishonest. If you listen to his responses (word choices, vocal stress indicators, placement of pauses) and watch his body language (facial expressions, head tilt, ect.) you quickly realize that this is not a documentarian that decided to look into something while trying to be as non-biased as his camera. This is an anarchist. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, there is no real problem with a documentarian being interested or supporting what they are filming, it does raise questions and concerns about it. But maybe that's just me.
Anyone who really understands the ideology of Anarchism knows that not everyone acts in a utopian way. There will always be criminal behavior.
Every iteration of an anarchic society will be dependent upon the participants, their economics, beliefs, and resources.
Unfortunately, power typically accumulates to those with the fewest scruples. How people deal with that ultimately determines the stability and success of that society.
Sockpuppet account has no content. Intimidation is not argument
@@libertariantranslator1929 Who is the sock puppet?
@@pappaflammyboi5799 Flamer channel doesn't have any content 😂
@@libertariantranslator1929 I don't see your point.
So basically, Anarchy is a Criminal run society that basically does not view criminals as bad? And theres a few ... maybe if one ruler?
Man, that'll be like going backwards. Im still surprised we haven't seen Anarchy full ... yet
Nobody "tries" anarchy. Anarchy is the default state of nature all people are born into. Subservience to purported authorities is a learned behavior. Getting married or building a shed without a license is anarchy. Going shopping is anarchy. Hanging with friends is anarchy.
Nah, marriage is civilization thing. You just confusing it with average monogamy.
By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
What is the connection between these grand bourgeois libertarians capitalists and anarchism ?
Being responsible for your own wellbeing includes having the means to defend yourself. If you live in a town where nobody gives a shit about each other, I don't think it ultimately matters how much government you employ. We all have been raised in a sick world and have our own individual baggage to bear. We have to learn to respect each other's rights for our own sake. We need a cultural revolution of individuals deciding to leave the world a better place than they found it. There is no political solution for our societal woes. The rot at the top is too entrenched to simply vote the establishment out; they will cheat, lie and murder their way to victory. We just have to change the culture or watch it all crumble.
Your politicians will definitely lie to keep being in control....but murder? And cheating - like with election results or by not following their own rules in various ways?
Yeah good things begets good things. I beginning to feel like the US is becoming like Gotham were people don't know why they would even try!
That's what I'm trying to say!
@@patrickday4206 Sadly psychopaths are born and not made. One person with a psychotic child will create enough influence to create a state. Or maybe a neighbor that isnt anarchic and has bigger and more powerful army. You see? It dont matter. You need organization for a successful society. Even Wolves have packs.
They basically want an gated community, which already exist all over the world, if you have the money to buy in you can live this life without creating an new society.
An anarchist society is a contradiction in terms. In any society there will be a heirarchy & someone will be in charge.
Anarchist society is a multiple hanging.
What about small tribes where everyone is a egalitarian?
@@johncaze757 That can work, but it's not scalable beyond a small tribe that's homogenous.
@@johncaze757 You mean like the Sentinelese?
Rand wasn't a libertarian. And collectives don't exist other than as a convenient fiction.
Anarchist infiltrators turned Rand against the LP. Her criticism is valid. Anarchism is looter violence plain and simple. The French Terror is what it is, and Dickens described it fairly.
@@libertariantranslator1929 I see her as a fraud and a racist.
Humans don't exist other than as a convenient fiction.
She was an anarchist for practical purposes.
By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Those are just ancaps
How were they trying to create a community? They were just putting on a weekend conference that people traveled to from all over the world to attend.
This is a hit piece because our beloved Western Hybrid Democratic Republics are Crashing and Burning and people are looking for answers.
Obviously, the Fatal Flaw of the Republic is the Representative who is for sale to the largest donor.
This would be near impossible in a Direct Democracy.
It inevitably became a "hit piece" because all the individuals are either pathetic or. despicable. Seems like a bunch of you wanted a propagandistic "puff piece".
If the word "Anarchy" scares you more than "state," you're not a libertarian
@Kingfish Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you're uncomfortable with emailing, I have a NON-email option you can consider.
They didn't try anarchy.
So who “tried anarchy”, and who succeeded? People like you lack something essential in your brains, something to do with logical reasoning.
@@truxton1000 I know, history books are hard. Reading is hard. Anyways.
@@Will_JC I don't know dude probably the fact that you will get fined or go to jail if you don't lmao
The US was designed around individual freedoms. The intent of the Founders was to build a limited government with very few specified obligations; chiefly protecting citizens from the nefarious acts of others. Once the Federal government decided that they could stray from their primary purpose and begin to justify many changes under the rubric of "general welfare", it began to rapidly grow in size until we arrive in current day where virtually everything we do is regulated by the government.
I don't see anything novel or revolutionary about the anarchist movement today. It has been tried repeatedly with varying success; typically as soon as someone decides they are bigger, stronger, and more ruthless than the anarchists around them, things start head south. And someone - from within or without - always appears who is willing to attempt to take advantage of society. The bigger the society the more likely a bad actor will insert himself (sorry, I'm using "himself" as the generic for mankind, not in a sexist patriarchal sense).
I am interested in the thought that fiat currency will necessarily be reduced in value until it hits zero. Countries constantly debase their currencies and in some cases fiat currencies can become virtually valueless (Weimar Germany, Venezuela, etc.). Does that mean that all fiat currencies will eventually become valueless? How does replacing fiat currencies with digital currencies impact nations, national sovereignty, national economies, etc.? Do nations pour resources into creating digital currency to gain an advantage on other nations? Does that potentially diminish the conceptual value of digital currency? Lots of questions on the statement that fiat currencies will eventually become valueless and the impact of that proposition.
Money is the commodity we use for exchange. All money is a commodity. The price of any commodity, produced in sufficient quantity, declines to the cost of production. I wish people would stop calling the US dollar and the Euro, fiat currencies. They are floating, debt backed currencies. Fiat currencies were those for which a government assigned a value and made it illegal to trade below that value. Outside the jurisdiction of the issuing government, the value of a fiat currency is zero.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 The US currency was backed by the value of Gold. The Gold Standard alleviated the egotistical assumptions of the value of any Country's paper currency. You can't live in a world that places one opinion over another. There has to be a metric that will eliminate the bickering.
Don't forget; how were those Individual Freedoms determined? These anarchists are rudderless or are narcissist's, maybe some are sociopaths & hopefully only a few are psychopaths. How can broken or near broken people determine a freedom...they can't, by their very nature. Anarchy is chaos; unsustainable, unpredictable, unbalanced etc. Broken people, like the Democratic Party, Socialists, The Left & Marxists; think they can solve an issue w/ their great from birth intellect & all knowing foresight(that's a sick person). You mention the Founding Fathers, how did they determine freedoms? Well, from writings; no one pulled any ideas out of their a$$ like an anarchist, or the aforementioned lost souls. The Founders did use their past personal experience w/ European Monarchies but also based their knowledge on the Christian Bible & Books of the Hebrew, Greek & Roman teachings & Philosophies. They wanted to construct the Constitution as best they could but w/ the option to create Amendments when needed. They also put checks in place to control the power of the Presidency & to apply fairness to all by creating the Electoral College. You're right, there is a place in Society/Culture for a Limited Govt. for the people. Like Trump said, His Bosses.
And look how well that turned out. The government started out "limited" then got big to what it is today. It's all, "Oh it's just supposed to protect the people! It's necessary and won't get out of hand!"
Turns out you shouldn't give people power over people period which is what government is. It's people with power over other a.k.a. a ruling class which is completely unjustifiable.
The problem isn't anarchy it's government as well as lack of self defense from it. You beef up the defense in an ancap society any government or aggressive entity that fucks with it gets fucked up and rightfully so.
With private gun ownership as well as private protection (security, police, military, etc.) even voluntary militias why is there even any leverage that government is necessary for protection?
If you truly want freedom you want anarchy, government is doomed to fail due to its inherent form, function as well as coercion.
@@anancapcat4221 Any human society will have hierarchy. It is unavoidable.
AnCap is not Anarchism. A book or two, hell, even a quick Google search, wouldn't kill ya.
By the way, Woody, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Oh no my dream got crushed by one murder incident in a freaking show.
Actually, hundreds of hangings and guillotinings before your parents were born.
The title of this video is incorrect. Anarchists (I'll just call them Anarcho-Capitalists, or An-Caps, because that's what they look to be covering here), are not technically anti-government. They are anti-State, the thing that demands a monopoly on the use of force and taxes.
There are probably An-Caps who are utopians, but I think they are rare. You can't solve the "Original Sin" (or whatever you want to call it) by abolishing the State. What you can do is solve all problems the State causes (which are most of them). What you can also do is better solve the problems the State claims to exist to fix, which is to say problems of justice, which is to say violations of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), both foreign and domestic.
When Statists claim something like "we need the State because otherwise there would be (various violations of NAP) and no-one would stop them", they are actually disproving their point. What they are saying is that there is lots of demand to stop violations of NAP, but then claiming that only the State can be the supplier to satisfy that demand. Well, wait, does the market satisfy demand better, or the State? The answer is obvious! In fact, if there's enough demand, and the technology exists, there *will* be a supply!
Now, private law, law enforcement, and justice are things that govern behavior, they are governments. They aren't the State. Churches, societal norms, social ostracism, supply and demand, and freedom of association also govern behavior and are governments.
So, the real question is, why do Statists claim that the only thing that can satisfy the massive amount of demand for justice is a permanent monopoly that, by its very nature, is unjust and violates NAP? It seems they are making the claim, not the An-Caps!
As an aside, it is nice to be on the side that simply says, "No, we won't be evil to others, regardless of how 'necessary' others think it must be!"
Some humans are broken. I suggest reading about cluster B. Psychopaths and sociopaths make up about 3% of the population, and will cause trouble wherever they are.
Laws are created with the intention of stopping people who cause trouble whether or not they know that only a certain part of the population causes trouble. However, these broken people ignore laws altogether. The problem is how to enforce laws to keep these people in line without putting too much of a burden on the vast majority that doesn't cause trouble, but are burdened by the existence of laws, and the abuses of the government, because the position of power attract the very people that should be held accountable.
I don't see anarchy working because these broken people will abuse others and defeat the good people in detail. Limited government is the compromise that I see. The jury system is a critical part.
@@acctsys Thank you for proving my points.
1. You can't fix original sin.
2. There is a high demand for justice.
3. The market can supply justice, law, and law enforcement (it has done historically, does so now, and will do so in the future).
So my question for you is simple. Why must the monopolistic State do it? You're making the claim, so you should defend it!
@@acem82 Churches, societal norms, social ostracism, supply and demand, and freedom of association are for lack of a better term, soft. What stops a person from saying I quit my subscription to the laws of A, the moment he kills another person?
I'm curious about the nuts and bolts of this that you suggest. It just seems nebulous to me.
I mean I could see the market for justice becoming a farce for warlords and private armies.
@@acctsys 1. Yes, those ones are soft. So?
2. What stops him? My gun. My private law enforcement.
3. This video (and channel) should give you a start:ua-cam.com/video/8kPyrq6SEL0/v-deo.html
4. Again, I'll point out that the worst any objection to private law is that it gets to be as bad as the State already is!
@@acem82 By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers - i.e., no masters no slaves. How radical is that?
yeah, and it means getting conquered by any country with an army....
@@gorequillnachovidal malitia is a thing bro
@@gorequillnachovidal You must be clueless about the 2nd amendment, which is a Militia made up of Volunteers. The greatest Risk of War with another Nation is a Standing Army.
We can abolish all world wide standing armies with the 2nd amendment. There would never be another standing army if every person in the planet was armed.
Wow. What an amazing thought. Could you imagine the peace that would exist if every individual was armed?
@@bobann3566 But does United States have a standing army now?
@@bobann3566 you are clueless about how neutered the 2nd amendment is, did you know that the malitia had for their time privately owned battleships? A rifle is not it dude, the whole 9
Stop manipulating people about anarchy!
ANARCHY IS NOT ANOMIE(french)
I love the constitution and very small government. No government is a bit too far, mainly because of military and the enforcement of law
The Constitution is not the problem, the problem is our Form of Government, the Republic with its corruptible Representatives and Bureaucrats who are for sale to the largest donor.
Oh sure, today, they have slapped on the lipstick of Democracy to our Republics, the People get to Vote on the Representative.
Well it is the Representative who makes the laws and makes war, not the people.
It is time to do away with these Republics for a Real Democracy a Direct Democracy.
"No government" is an impossibility. How do people suppose such a power vacuum would remain unfilled?
Better to fill it with the most beneficial/least bad government we can devise than to wait for despotism to take advantage.
Neither of those require the state.
@@Strideo1 wrong. “Power vacuum” is not a thing. Stateless societies have existed for centuries if not millennia.
@@ExPwner Okay so can you give a simple description in your own words as to how you can have effective versions of those things without government? And can you give examples of these stateless societies that have existed for centuries or millennia and how are they doing now?
Anarchy simply means "no rulers". Why is that complicated? Why should we live in a world with rulers, who use violence and coercion to force others to do things. Seems pretty simple to me that is immoral. Why most humans are not able to grasp such a simple concept is beyond me.
Isnt it, no state?
@@1MDA Literally means "no rulers" however, the state is made up of rulers, so yeah, under anarchy there can NOT be a state.
@@mattolivier1835 Are you shore about that? After seeing some anarchist youtubers they all dont think anarchy literaly means no rules, and the google definition agrees with the stateless meaning. If you agree with another guy you shouldnt harm each other in a stateless society it would still be anarchy.
@@1MDA I never said anarchy means "no rules". It means "NO RULERS". It comes from Latin. AN - means without. ARCHY - means ruler. Therefore anarchy literally means NO RULERS. No rulers does NOT mean no rules or no leaders. A state is made up of rulers, because it isn't voluntary. The state is NOT voluntary, therefore they are rulers. The difference between a ruler and a leader is that rulers force people to follow them under threat of violence or coercion. Leaders must use persuasion to convince people to voluntarily follow them. The belief in anarchy is the belief that ALL human interactions should be voluntary, and not based on violence and coercion. It is the belief that it is immoral to initiate violence against others. Be careful as a LOT of channels and sites have no idea what anarchy really means. A lot of them are anarcho-syndicalists. That's ridiculous in my opinion. A lot of them are socialists also. Socialism is NEVER voluntary. I believe in capitalism, as long as it's laissez-faire.
@@mattolivier1835 I cant read, sory, I failed to read the word "rulers" properly, and so I apologize for exposing you to my idiocy.
Thank you for the advice, I myself hold anarcocapitalist views, but I'm very green and as knowledgable as an teenager.
One could say I broke the NAP by exposing you to my poor reading skills, for real I apologise.
It might be very unfair of me, but the aspects of this documentarian make me not trust him at all.
Talk about syndicalism. Talk about Catalonia. Talk about what we know works. Your acting like anarchist have not legitimate perspectives or have not thought of what constitutes a functional society.
By the way, Aryeh, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
To hell with Todd and to hell with Reason for not grilling him on the deliberate and biased negative view of a conference based on selected actions and words of some protagonists.
why does this host always look like he’s about to cry, bro fix ur eyes
This simply wasn't even close to an attempt at Anarchy. Like Todd noticed, this place was rife with government and policemen! If there is a police force that rules your territory, how could you possibly practice anarchy, which would inevitably need alternatives to a police force? And Assurance agencies? All the classic solutions from Hoppe, Rothbard, Freidman, Hazlett, and others who wrote about stateless societies never get a chance to be put into practice.
That's the thing, it was a convention not a community, and anarco-capitalism isn't Anarchism.
@@woodygilson3465 Anarcho capitalism is the only real anarchism
@@f__kyoudegenerates 🤣🤣🤣
@@f__kyoudegeneratesThe "anarchists" that want to form an oppressive hierarchy (capitalism) are the only true anarchists trust me bro
@@pivomanslovensko Anarchy means no rulers not no hierarchy's. It's impossible to not have hierarchy. Anarcho capitalism is the only logically consistent ideology.
There are a decent number of anarcho-capitalists, like myself, who don't party. We play chess and other games. We like classical music, thoughtful movies, family, and fine dining. We might have a glass of wine with dinner, but we don't use other recreational drugs because we respect our minds too much. We tend to not smoke regularly or at all; we shower daily; and we don't have tattoos. We might own a hand gun, but we're just as likely to not know one end of a gun from another. We place high importance on conducting ourselves in an upright, proper, calm, friendly, and polite manner. But I don't suppose an annual gathering of these kind of people would have made for a salable documentary.
Based! Hi fellow AnCap chess enthusiast!
There is not a single anarcho-anything but variants of communo-fascist socialist Trilbys
You sound like Hannibal Lector or Patrick Bateman so I think a documentary covering an annual gathering of such people would be very interesting indeed.
Kinda like this: ua-cam.com/video/cISYzA36-ZY/v-deo.html
Libertarians and anarcho-caps tend to be kooks and misfits unfortunately that doesn't lend itself to be taken seriously.
@@wolflarson71 ALL anarcho-anything is reheated violent socialism. It was reheated in 1971 to infiltrate and destroy the LP so The Kleptocracy may safely ignore the spoiler no longer increasing 12% per annum
An elimination of federal authority and a return to a more regional authority would fit within a syndicalist society, collectivizing workplaces with more than let’s say 200 employees thereby creating a ceiling for upward mobility while elevating base wages. That is one aspect of the society I as an anarchist envision.
How did that work for Comancheria?
Todd's Fake background
By the way, Sue, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Anarchist principles have a great deal of merit. However, once you attach '-ism' to the end of anything, you have an ideology, and all ideologies are complete garbage, because they deny reality.
Show me what you can practically implement, and that is all I am concerned about. I subscribed to Anarchy magazine for many years, and ordered all the back issues, and anarchists, like all nitwits of any ideology, live in a fantasyland of non-reality. The hardcore libertarians live in a fantasyland. Ideology is actually evil. Behind every -ism is a fanatic and an ideologue.
In every ideology is the perfectibility of human beings, which is impossible. Have a particular bent, and live your principles to the best of your ability. The founding fathers thought the Republic would last less than a hundred years. This country was not ideologically founded. It was practically founded.
You can look up -ism in the dictionary (just did) but anytime -ism is attached to any system or code of behavior it is indicative of an inflexible system of belief and is purely ideological. The word plagiarism is not ideological, but socialism is. Anyone who is willing to proclaim that they are a believer in some -ism is an ideologue to be feared. No social or political system can never function at the level where it can become an ideology, because human beings cannot be perfected, and generally they are unintelligent and lazy and inept.
This is why Guy Debord had such a vicious and strong reaction to the rube who called the beliefs of the Situationist International 'Situationism'
The Situationist International (1957-1972) was an international but Paris-based formation which recreated the avant garde tradition on a high plane of intelligence and intransigence.
At the Institute for Contemporary Arts in 1961, one baffled member of the audience (or was he a shill?) asked the panel of Situationists just what was "Situationism" all about? Guy Debord arose to announce, in French, "We're not here to answer cu*#ish questions," whereupon the Situationists walked out.
Than why does it have ism in it and what the definition of -ism exactly?
@@Menstral O Kay I understand where you are coming from but we need to why -ism is a thing in the first place. What's the definition of it exactly?
It's not so much the anarchism or the libertarianism that is the source of the problems. It's life and humanity. The question is, how do these systems (or non-systems) manage these problems? So yes, he's right, the personal problems are the crux. People are a problem. And they're also very interesting.
The same way every other system deals with them. It's so weird that people ask "but what about the roads, firemen, and police" as if those things couldn't possibly be created without gov't with a million times more accountability and transparency, with the right to leave and stop supporting said thing on top of it all.
@@Will_JC Strange question, as I don't think my first comment makes that claim either way. Only that society could manage to come up with solutions without gov't dictating every aspect of our lives.
The police definitely enforce it, regardless of whether it is properly law or a just law. I don't consider it otherwise relevant, as it is just semantics that doesn't effect reality.
TL,DR. Instead of glossing over the truth about anarchism, just let the facts in this mater speak for themselves. Of course, the murder wasn't a result of people gathering to discuss or promote anarchism, but it does reveal a natural flaw in the ideology. Anarchists don't believe in developing a method by which they can deal with these kinds of disruptive people. A lawless society is just that.
Does anyone see the irony in this, people gathering in a capitalist development with rules and regulations to discuss the merits of anarchy?
The People's Temple had all sorts of hopes and dreams... and ended up as Ayn Rand predicted.
Huh, I never heard of that.
@@Weirdomanification People who find out, know. = )
"microcosm of a society" ?
Likeminded people gathering in one place...but they were still living in a state. And when shit hits the fan they call Mexican Police.
"issues that don't just exist in anarchy land" ?
Outside of anarchy land, a veteran can get some help -treatment in state run facilities. Same issues exist in modern societies /states but anarchy land cannot deal with those issues. In the end a community can't function -exist without some level of hierarchy. Without chieftain or council or....
Everything would be better if you were in charge
It is ridiculous to as the "relationship" between this murder and "anarchism more generally". The reporting concerns some kind of yearly "convention", not even an actual attempt at a collective, non-government controlled, intentional community, which would be closer to the mark at least in trying to infer some kind of conclusion about "anarchism". But most importantly, "an-archism" just means "without-centralised government". It says nothing about what types of social/self relations replaces that. There are many, many different forms of anarchism practices today around the world, and even more imaginable. The focus on "anarchism" per se is only because currently we, globally, suffer a system of centralised authoritarian abusive rule. So a key focus would of course be to remediate that problem: an-archism.
Anarchy is doing whatever you want while respecting everyone else's property and anatomy. At least that's how I see it.
To an extent. You can't actually be "do whatever you want" with culture. Some cultures are more conducive to liberty than others. This is why Hoppe argues for right wing libertarianism as realistic libertarianism.
No, that would be voluntarism.
@@remyllebeau77 voluntarism is anarchism
@@remyllebeau77 🤦No masters, no rulers is in direct correlation with voluntarism. If you are imposing your will onto someone then you are de facto acting as a master.
@JamesDayton Just curious, how did you find this video?
Who was John Galton?
Almost as if his name and death was a work of art.
What do you mean “what happens”? This has been played out many many times in reality from Jonestown to various communes to the CHAZ in Seattle most recently to Lord of The Flies in literature. Now a replay with some richer people is special?
“A man, pause, was murdered, big pause”
Was his name Piggy, as in LoTF? Is there another guy named Jim Jones? Or Raz Simone? Who could predict that.
Disgusting, Reason.
This producer is in fact quite ignorant of key anarchist principles & beliefs, despite attending the Anarcapulco event for 6+ yrs & with key access to every aspect of it. For example circa Min 22:00 he affirms that "Anarchism is an absence of systems", which is categorically not the case. Anarchism simply means the Absence of imposed rules & ruler(s), which is a completely different concept, and is repeated ad infinitum by Jeff & attendees. Moreover many anarchists aspire to coexistence within a patchwork of different societies, each with their own set of rules (such as religious beliefs, LGBTQ only, free market, mixed market, etc). After hearing his views on the subject, we gain a view as to why the documentary tended to focus on the multiple failings & dangers of living in anarchy but not enough on the benefits. Given this has aired on an old school MSM platform, who could realistically have expected any better. "We should Judge a tree by its fruits" said someone who, like Jeff & Max & Icke & Griffin & et al, also vehemently questioned everything.
So basically, a group of individuals got together to practice a social concept that turned their gathering into the equivalent of an inner city ghetto?
Makes sense! It's a perfect idea! What could possibly go wrong?
This is propaganda - a hit piece on the idea of living without govt. The conference and everyone there was very different than they are portrayed in the docu-series. It shows the extent they will go to to try to convince the masses of the need for govt.
The problem with anarchy is it really is a negative connotation of the reverse concept of liberty. Liberty is taking responsibility for you and the individuals around you it is if you have a homeless problem and are person that values his own property values his community his neighborhood that person wants to get people together and fix the problem not wait for the government. Anarchy tends to focus on concept of I do what I want and if someone has an issue it's just their problem. We don't need a government for anything but the most basic things when we accept the concepts of liberty and that citizens are in control as long as we take responsibility. I believe responsibility begets more and more people that want to participate in solutions.
All the passengers in a big boat can’t be captains of that big boat.
There must be some control on human behaviors as some losers will push to the limits.
That's you
Who will control those behaviors? And by what standard?
"Do you seriously have such faith in human wisdom that you want universal sufferage and government of all by all and then you proclaim these very men whom you consider fit to govern others unfit to govern themselves?"
- Frédéric Bastiat
Only aggression needs control. Vices are not crimes.
Not having watched the series yet, I think I’d be happy enough living under a government without most of the 3-letter agencies (IRS, CDC, EPA, CIA, etc.) , the “Federal” Reserve, and the Pentagon. But I’d want to keep state and local law enforcement strong because there will always be people stealing, raping, killing, etc. when they think no one is watching to stop and punish them.
Private police are a thing. Point taken tho 🙂
The only way I would see it as possible that you have a government without those agencies would be if you could control where your money goes to with voluntary taxes. Problem is realistically the government would probably only make certain payments voluntary and not things like defense and so on. And I am pretty sure they would just hide those in defense spending. A start would be to get a detailed account of government spending.
Better to have everyone armed. Criminals inclinations are self checked if they believe their victim is armed, and another benefit of having the entire population armed, if a fool tries to initiate violent force or engage in coercion, they will be met with a greater force from the population itself, no need to have large law enforcement who only arrive after the harm has been done.
Really, the only thing we really need are lawful Tort Courts of Remedy because we do not live in a perfect world, unfortunately the corrupt Representatives of the Hybrid Republics have totally corrupted the courts today.
Thankfully it is all crashing and burning around us and in 10 years we can replace it with the final embers snuffing out out on their own.
Then we can do away with Republics for good and replace them with real Direct Democracies.
@@bobann3566 Direct democracies are not really better if the populace doesn't think for themselves and just parrot the points shoved into them during government indoctrination.
The federal government has set up permanent bureaucracies that are not accountable to the public and thus tyranny arises.
You don't need to watch this series to see what anarchy looks like; just watch the Woodstock 99 documentary.
Or footage of riots (ex. the 1992 Los Angeles riots).
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates for the elimination of the state in favor of a society based on private property, free markets, and voluntary association. Anarcho-capitalists believe that the state is inherently coercive and that it violates individual liberty. They believe that the free market is the best way to organize society and that it can provide for all of the needs of individuals without the need for government intervention.
Anarcho-capitalism is a radical ideology that has been criticized by both the left and the right. Some people on the left believe that anarcho-capitalism is too individualistic and that it would lead to the exploitation of the weak by the strong. Some people on the right believe that anarcho-capitalism is too utopian and that it is not realistic to expect people to voluntarily cooperate without the threat of government coercion.
Despite these criticisms, anarcho-capitalism has a small but dedicated following. Anarcho-capitalists believe that their ideology is the only way to achieve true individual liberty and that it is the only way to create a just and equitable society.
Here are some of the key tenets of anarcho-capitalism:
* **Abolition of the state:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that the state is inherently coercive and that it violates individual liberty. They believe that the free market is the best way to organize society and that it can provide for all of the needs of individuals without the need for government intervention.
* **Private property:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that private property is essential for individual liberty. They believe that individuals should have the right to own and control their own property, and that they should not be subject to the arbitrary dictates of the state.
* **Free markets:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that the free market is the best way to organize economic activity. They believe that the free market is efficient and that it can provide for the needs of all individuals.
* **Voluntary association:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that individuals should be free to associate with whomever they want and to form whatever kind of communities they want. They believe that individuals should not be forced to associate with people or groups that they do not want to associate with.
* **Non-aggression principle:** Anarcho-capitalists believe that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defense. They believe that individuals should not use force to initiate violence or to coerce others into doing things they do not want to do.
Anarcho-capitalism is a complex and evolving ideology. It is a challenge to achieve, but it offers the potential for a more just and equitable society. Also it worked in Acadia and other nations tried and worked
Its all fun and games until someone puts an eye out, oh wait gets Epstined
Trying to mix the reason-loving, certainty proclaiming philosophy of Ayn Rand with the absolute skepticism of Kantian philosophy sounds like a disaster just waiting to happen. Apparently politics isn't everything and philosophy matters.
There are various levels of extreme skepticism.
3. You could disregard any analysis you yourself haven't completed as not trustworthy.
2. You could also disregard any information that you yourself haven't collected.
1. And, even more extreme, you could disregard even your own logical analysis, as you believe that logic itself is untrustworthy. (With that, you should automatically disregard your own perceptions.)
I don't think the crowd at Acapulco followed any of these rules _consistently_. Maybe some have claimed that they only trust in what they themselves have verified, but I'd guess only 1-10% would do that consistently.
As for Berwick being so skeptical against everything - as Todd Schramke claims at 15:56 - that is just not true. He seems to be able to accept any kind of bs, if it just presented by the right people.
As for Objectivism. It's great on being so pragmatic (focused on one's life, one's happiness, and one's character necessary to navigate in the world to achieve one's goals). It's less great on being a stickler for their own very particular definitions. ;-) But mostly....if Objectivism is based on a scientific outlook on life, why haven't they come up with a plan to convince the masses of how great liberty is? Or some other plan to get rid of the injustices. That should at least be no. 10 on the list of public goods that your own community would want to achieve. I'm guessing it actually is at no. 1. And still, if you look at the strategies that have already born fruit - cryptoanarchy, convincing governments to try economic/judicial free zones - and those that seem promising - mainly seasteading - where are the objectivist thinkers and collaborators? Sure, engaging in solving politics is time-consuming, and many of the allies are kind of like Berwick....but still. Some work in it is necessary, if just to understand the system and construct a model of how one should be able to avoid/break/transform it.
Or, am I missing something? Not meant as a damning criticism (unless you are all-or-nothing, of course - but then a single flaw could make it all crumble, which is not how I perceive Objectivism), but a directed one at the "certainty" of it.
Kant valued altruism, mysticism and sacrifice.
@@libertariantranslator1929 If you can't hold values rationally, because you can't find necessity for them, then the only place to get them, if at all, is from others. So it's based on skepticism.
@@Bit-while_going Pick up on the no-content sockpuppet!
@@libertariantranslator1929 Hey, you're welcome to your local modern art shitsmear if you find that more enlightening or less opaque.
Just watched the series. Not an anarchocapitalist, but I really felt like I understood the dynamics of the situation. I think the series says less about anarchism (it could have been a film about vegans or communists) and more about the 21st century and how the systems we've created undermine community, social capital, and trust in institutions.
We saw such a natural human response to these pressures. Lack of sense of meaning/purpose. Pressure to make money inside of a corrupt system. These struggles are universal, like your guest said. We express our responses a bit differently and adopt different understandings of how things got this way, but we're all feeling the same thing.
I also think of political movements as an outgrowth of this. There was a recent communist group that just dissolved due to the leader (Caleb Maupin) behaving inappropriately, abusing power etc. Nick Brana with the Movement for a People's Party was accused of something similar.
And we can't forget about all the dissolved communes, raw vegan communities, and so many other groups, including churches and business leaders that inevitably run into these issues. Everyone starts off with good intentions and lofty aspirations, but eventually pretending the rest of society doesn't exist bumps into reality.
p.s. I say this as a communist vegan. No hate. Just an observation that we shouldn't use failures and drama like this as ammunition in our ideological debates as some QED.
Anarchism is inherently left-wing 🏴
Ayn Rand had nothing to do with early libertarianism. There had been many better libertarians for more than a century before she was born.
@magister343 By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Anarchists when they have anarchy and someone gets killed: 😯😱😱😱
By the way, Doran, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
25:16 Be excellent to each other.
LOVE VIOLENCE AND CRUELTY.
What a terrible video!
No more leaders that's all
Anarchy means no rulers not no rules. Also this a festival.
Also Acapulco has a government.
Am I the only one that thinks this director talks kind of like a politician a lot of words but at the end ,not much meaning in it
Ideology is how you see reality, isn't a theory or abstraction.
By the way, Dave, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
noam chomsky - manuacturing consent [who owns HBO?]
By the way, Csilla, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
Interesting
AnCap is not an anarchism
@Fallen By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
What a hit piece.
What is a community, a Society? A collective of individuals who come together out of mutual self interest. This Self Organization happens naturally. Self Organization is Natural Process.
Government is the Legal Wrong as a Right to Initiate Violent Force and the Legal Wrong as a Right to engage in Coercion.
Why?
Because groups of people may initiate violent force and engage in coercion, we call the criminals. So what do the smart criminals do? They go in Government where they can legally initiate violent force and engage in coercion. Go Figure.
Meanwhile, in the world of Reality, Western Republics are Crashing and Burning around our very eyes everyday from within due to the Fatal Flaw of Republics, the corruptible Representative and Bureaucrats who is purchased by the highest donor.
The Anarchist should try to get behind a Direct Democracy for this is as close to the Self Rule principles of Anarchism that an anarchist can get with out becoming a lone wolf.
No, we do not need to give groups of people Wrongs as Rights, that is not wise.
And direct democracy is about the dumbest thing people could go for.
Hit piece?? If they had massaged the egos of these douchebags any more Anarchopulco would have been an even stickier mess.
You had me all the way up to direct democracy.
Thing about self interest is that it often isn't mutual, it changes and morphs all the time.
Direct Democracy isn't sustainable the larger the scale
Ancap (which this documentary is about) is an excellent for of anarchism /s
@archoaxu By the way, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
ok, when murder happen is USA why we do not say that system is failed?
Man that documentary filmmaker is a ghoul. People were killed and he's thinking about how he can turn this to his advantage... 🤮
It doesn't make much sense to say how "extreme" and/or "utopian" anarchism is because that very extremity is the main appeal for young males (roughly, between the ages of 16 and 25) - and a small number of older people. That is, such people are drawn to the fact that it's a kind of Year Zero world view. It makes them feel different from the Straights and highlights their own individuality... or so they believe. It also, perhaps more importantly, focusses the aggression and hate - despite anarchism's self-image of promoting peace, love, community, etc. That said, there are many brands of anarchism. Some of which aren't "pacifist" at all! I'm also aware that American anarchism is very different to British anarchism, as some of the comments in this thread show.
This isn't theory. I myself was an anarchist between the ages of 18 and 23. And *all* of the anarchists I knew were anarchists at *exactly* the same ages. I very rarely came across an anarchist who was older than 23. So anarchism is largely a young-man thing; though many of the theorists (as well as leaders) of anarchism have been much older. There are other ways to talk about anarchism. So this is just one aspect of anarchism and its appeal to - mainly - young men.
No sane presentable woman is attracted to anarch-anything
For me it is impossible to dismiss the morality of voluntarism. It wasn't some deep seated anger that brought me to this pov.
Is I have this question not too long ago and I was wondering is it possible to genetic engineered Anarchy?
No, but lobotomies help.
@@cryptsub I was thinking about changing the genetics to make people more empathetic, more reasonable and more independent. That's only way I can think anarchy will work. Also why did you bring up lobotomy?
A great idea! What could possibly go wrong?
@@johncaze757 genetically engineering the humanity out of people will help humanity a lot. Back to obscurity for you.
Looking forward to this documentary and the people's stories. A "utopia" is impossible because people will always bring their inherent sinful nature. Doesn't matter if it's a big-govt society or an "anarchist" society. Only a society ruled by Christ Himself can hope to have true peace.
So alien extraterrestrial life won't go to heaven? God created the universe, do you think God would only create humans in this vast universe? Big waste of space.
Any society ruled by Christ would have all the same human factors and human needs that make utopias an impossible fantasy. These perfect worlds are always the dreams of the anointed and the rest of us their victims.
@@raymondjensen4603 you clearly don't know Christ.
@@allenc1570 Christ wouldn't be the problem..., people would. By the way, he isn't coming so best to set your own life in order. Living a Christian life is a valuable thing even for non-Christians.
This comment section is filled with anarchapulco burnouts 😂😂😂
By the way, Parker, what evidence exists (that you know of) to support the claim that a man is obligated to have a license or registration in order to use a car on the roads?
😒
"they tried anarchy". lol. what an idiot phrase. we do anarchy every time we do anything without threat of violence. ANARCHY = NO RULERS. from the greek. nothing more, nothing less. anarchy is NOT left or right. it is not communist, and it can ONLY be capitalist. inherently
anarchy has the most lied-about definition today.
No society can exist without rulers, or if you want to use other words; a hierarchy. Hierarchy exists in all communities, even among animals. The first thing any animals that live together do is to establish a leader, and a hierarchy of the leaders, dogs, wolfs, cows, you name it it always happen.Anarchy is just an imaginary thing that of course can never work, anyone with a functioning logical brain understand that. Even my 13 year old boy pointed it out when we were discussing the different ways of organising a society.
@@truxton1000 societies existed before rulers. long before. leader and ruler mean different things. a leader is followed voluntarily by the individual(s) who see her as wise or experienced etc.
a ruler demands authority with violence.
this is all from the dictionary, ofc, so anyone who comes up with "whatever that means to yOU.." is not knowledgeable about how language works.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Well you are totally wrong, of course a small group of people can exist is a society without a formal structure. I have read something about how many and as far as I can remember it was about 50 people, any larger than that a more formal structure is needed, if not chaos will rule the world. So unless you and any other nitwhit can come up with a proper example that a large society can function with an informal structure of leaders (where people will "voluntary" follow some kind of leader without that leader having the power to punish) I will stick with my logical opinion that a society absolutely NOT can function like you describe it. You people are just like the communists, you say your way of organizing a society is superior but you totally ignore the fact that due to how humans behave it's 100% impossible. Just look around: people break the rules even if they KNOW they will be punished, what on earth do you think they would do if they knew that punishment was not an option?? Just think about that for just 1 minute! I'm sure if you REALLY think about it all sorts of things will pop up in your head. Just look what happens in a society when you have an electricity black out, in most places just that will lead to people immediately robbing shops etc, and that's just because of the fact they know a black out will make it harder to get caught, if it was "no rules" Jesus Christ it would be mayhem.
@@truxton1000 Well you are totally wrong. i read like 2 sentences of the huge paragraph and stopped. we do anarchy every day, and healthy adults do not need rulers/rules.
organization is to be organic and uncentralized. otherwise you have a crappy society.
anarchy = no rulers. nothing more, nothing less. capitalism is inherent in it.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 So I ask again: mention ONE society that has succeeded in what you preach, just ONE! Right, you can’t do it, obviously.
you made too much face time on this one
“Anarchopulco”! 😂👍
Is the doc out yet?
Yes on HBO
Yes it is. It's on HBO MAX. Do a search on The Anarchists.
Not sure how you make a doc on Anarchists without interviewing me since I'm the only real one.
I know for a fact that you are not a real anarchist. I know because I am the only one.
poser
Hey man, get off my cloud you hoser
@@stvargas69 its a fart cloud....he escaped from his fart jar
🌹🧬🇺🇲🗽⚖️📜🛡️🧠😇🤳🖕🫵?
Murderers exist so anarchy doesn’t work… smh.
I know right, what a total hit piece. Offering as a solution a wrong as a right to Government. Crazy.
In true anarchy, there is no society, no leader/follower archetypes. Which is why this is an menyacle notion, and for one to think you could have a "community " or common unity without some form of government is deranged. If everyone would take care of themselves, control their actions and such then we could possibly achieve greater things.
Sadly all it takes is one bad apple to ruin anarchy. Forcing the need for intervention. Which leads right back to community guidelines being enforced by a government.
Yeah anarchy cannot work because of human nature always looks for hierarchy. That's why cults centered around these ideals never work out.
Interiging
Guess no one at HBO read Lord of the Flies.
This is anarhocapitalism. No really anarchist.