Hello friends. Patrick McFarland here of the Liberty weekly podcast coming at you with another episode. This one is episode number 122 and the show notes may be found at Liberty weekly dotnet forward slash 122. And the title of this episode is I am Rands objections to anarchism debunked and joining me is the co-host of the show. Keith Knight. How's it going buddy? It's going great. I've been looking for someone to cover this topic for some time. So I'm excited. We have the Andre. Lexicon.
So it separates all her ideas on certain topics just like an encyclopedia and we're just going through all the anarchists objections should be good. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm excited to have you back on and for us to do another show together. It's been a little bit, but we are busy men, aren't we? We are, we are many obligations of course. Yeah. Well, let's let's start off right away just by, why don't you tell us a little bit about Ian Rand because I haven't covered.
Murder at all on the show. And to be honest, I don't really follow her work. The important thing to know about Ian Rand, as she was able to write, not only nonfiction, but fiction as well. She's mostly known for her fiction. The fountain had an Atlas Shrugged and she came to America after the Bolsheviks, collectivized her father's company. So when she came to America, she was able to not only embrace the principles and appreciate them, but articulate them to the
masses in a way. That was sort of like exposing them exposing a fish to water. It's like here is what? Freedom is. It's like what do you mean? I'm sort of doing my own thing all the time. Hold on there. There's places where you have to get the state's permission to do these certain things. That's ridiculous. Well, she sort of exposed the American fish to the water of statism and its possibilities. She warned against the likelihood.
I would say her best prediction. I think was to say that the state and the Operations will sometimes merge together against the populace. She whereas, in popular culture at seeing that there's business, who wants free markets, and there's government, who wants to help the public at large. She saw right through that brilliantly. She said that collectivism or altruism far from being a virtue of the purpose of living, your life, for the sake of others
should be reversed. You should live your life for yourself and basically in pursuing your own self-interest you can do anything you want. So Long as you don't initiate violence, she was very Pro self-defense against innocent people. That's her little short bio and that's her link to libertarianism. Well, so before we jump into the actual quotes that she made, why don't you answer? Why do people hate Ian Ran?
So Much? The hatred of Ian, Rand, really stems from the fact that she doesn't fit me woman advocating, big government and advocating. Um, it's always seen as an order for blacks, or the poor or certain groups that you belong to. If they don't Advocate big government. They're somehow or another sticking up for the man or the status quo. So she really throws a wrench in the typical thinking that way. I really think they don't like her because she really laid out
a consistent philosophy. Everything about well, she's selfish. Well, all the president's you worship have engaged in theft and mass murder. And you're against selfishness. So the only consistency that I can find in Ian, Rand haters, is she did not, she did not use the typical Arguments for Oregon. State is MM. Again, state has a might be, well, it lacks in efficiency. She really made arguments on principle.
Also. It is important to create a man against woman, black against white sort of conflict and Society. So when someone says, Oh, there's a conflict. So big. That's why we need a big government to respond. Only a big government can solve this problem. When someone says government doesn't the solution and the free market is, well, obviously, you're just signing up for the splc hate list. Well, and then so, why is it that people connect Ian ran to libertarianism?
Because I guess the first one of the first things I get from a lot of people when I tell them that I'm a very radical libertarianism or a very radical libertarian, rather is that They always say something about Ian Rand and I'm like, actually, I don't read Ian Rand. Maybe I should, maybe I should read Ian Rand, but what I usually say is that well, I am ran didn't like Libertarians and called them the hippies of the right. So is that a true quote? Am I running a foul? I'm actually not sure.
But there's a difference between people who have embraced the libertarian culture and made it something or another versus D philosophy. She made it very clear on her first. Sewed on her. First appearance on Phil. Donahue. Why is she what the root of her philosophy is? And she says, I am the archenemy of force of initiating Force. Now why why Force? Why not volunteer is? And why you against that? She says, well, it stops individuals from engaging in reason, what makes them human in
the first place. So this therein lies her connection to libertarianism that something done voluntarily
as the result of free will. And reasoned exchange, where people can do their own cost-benefit analysis, make the decision for themselves that is superior to someone coercively, forcing their will against another, that is her link to libertarianism the Embrace of self-ownership self-rule and the non-aggression principle, even though she wouldn't use those words, but the philosophies are identical. And that's why it's interesting that shell bash libertarianism
or anarchism. Right. Well, I mean we'll get into that in just a second here. But I think that may be the reason why I always kind of try and distance myself from Ian. Rand is because one I actually like I can't say honestly that I follow her work and to is that it's an immediate turn off with people like because people have conceived in their mind, that they know exactly who I in Rand is and what she stands for, and they hate her on principle.
So if you want to get anywhere with these people, it seems like. You just have to disavow her. People haven't heard of Murray rothbard or Ludwig, von mises or, you know, yeah, so what do you think about that? Well, I'm Ryan does not easy to relate to an immigrant with a thick accent, who's very old. She's not easy to relate to, she's not talking about topics of the day. So it's very easy to say this is the face of libertarianism this thing. You can't relate to that sold.
That's outdated. She's bitter. She's angry. She doesn't like the Palestinians or the Iranians even though she's more anti-war. Then all Democrats and republican nominees today. Yeah, that would basically be that the reason I think is that it's so hard to relate to her. Also. There is the fact that she wrote fiction. So it's much harder to grasp it. And, to be honest. I haven't even read her fiction work. It was just her nonfiction, that blew me away.
There were two books, The Virtue of selfishness and capitalism, the unknown ideal that Worked out really turned me on to her work and her ability just to explain business Cycles. Why some countries are rich? Why some are poor, the difference between a moral Society, how the Bolsheviks use the kulaks, as the reason to gain power, how the national socialists were leftists who just use the Jews, as a reason
to get gain power. Now, of course, left and right means something different in America than it does in Europe. And the Nazis would be considered right wing. There. But just her ability to really analyze history I think is another reason she needs to be hidden from the masses. If she does such a great job of exposing it. Yeah, well, it's it's really easy to dismiss someone's or to dismiss someone's ideas when you feel like you. Oh, I know what that's all
about. I'm not going to touch that Ian ran bad. So we're just going to put that in that category. But so maybe one last thing here like cats are misbehaving. So one last thing here. Do you listen to rush at all? The band, Russia Russian the band Rush. Not what? I've seen him twice in concert. They were incredible. I feel like we've talked about this before perhaps, but well, you know, how Neil Peart has talked about.
He was really into i&r and at the beginning of Rush and I don't know if Getty was into Ian Rand at the beginning to, but since then Neil Peart is specifically disavowed. His his wild younger years and reading Ian Rand and filling Russia. Lyrics with Ian, ran stories and calls himself a bleeding-heart, some other. So that's just an example of people, you know, distancing themselves because it's not in Vogue to like I in rent. Of course, it's not even though it should be with all this
female empowerment. What's more empowering than scaping this evil regime and going to a new country working for pennies on the dollar, learning a new language and writing two of the most Best-selling books ever and developing a brilliant philosophy, something. That hasn't been, I mean probably the best thing since Aristotle. She's Loosely post-industrial Aristotle. Works using reason as opposed to someone like Play-Doh or even John Rawls. So yeah, those are just nonarguments.
It's every scientologists letter that comes in the mail year because we had a new church come by. I used to be lost, but then I found Scientology. Well, just the fact that you changed is not an argument. The fact that well Neil Peart was young, but now he's better. Every libertarian. I've talked to used to be a status but now I would never use that as an argument. That's code for. I don't have an argument and please induct us into the Hall of Fame with, you know, Stevie
Wonder giving us our inductees. That's not that. That's not a reasoned argument. Yeah, we did. I haven't, you know, tried to search for his reasoning but yeah. That's very typical just to say I switched I was wrong then I'm there for right now because right now is more recent. It's not an argument. Of course. Yeah well and its really disappointing to it's kind of like I'm some level.
You don't want to get to know your Heroes because you might not like what you find and There's no reason to it and any better said that about Neil Young and it's so true. I meant this philosopher David Schmitz, and I'm like, oh gosh, he's done such brilliant work. He works at U of A. I finally met him biggest jerk ever. Oh, man. So yeah, I definitely know what that's like, but then again at school to, you know, meet guys like Jason Brennan or Tom Woods or we, you know, Open to
Corbett, right? So much that. Well, and they've, I mean, the interacting I've done with people that I idolized in terms of the podcast has always been positive really nice people, especially James, but the thing with Neil, Peart just to revisit that for a second. It's always so weird how when he was younger.
He was on the like a radical and he was kind of going against the grain kind of a conic counterculture ideology, but then getting older you just Fall into the rut of the mainstream and what everyone, you know, what the status quo is. And it's just so disappointing to see like, oh, yeah. And well, now I'm a bleeding heart and I really care about people. So we need socialism and Canadians now, so, it wasn't, it's just like that line from
subdivisions off of Mowgli pay. It's like be cool or be cast out right there passed out. So, they Embrace sadism and started bashing libertarianism. You might think I mean, when you read something that's so brilliant, like this is, And to catch on I'm like, oh my gosh, there's a there's this new study showing that, you know, I don't want to use to better than
example. But let's say that the minimum wage or something comes out and it turns out people with the least amount of skills and the least amount of job experience are hurt. The worst turns out High skilled. People are not harm turns out, small business, can't afford it, big business. And I remember reading that and being like, Oh my God, this is the most brilliant thing. These Leftists are going to have no more arguments now and of course, it's false or not.
It's false. It's never embraced and it was published decades ago. So when something looks like it's going to be so big. It's like, well, Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark saying that there was a plan in 2001 to invade Iraq. Somalia, Sudan and Iran. The all under the guise of 9/11. This is going to be everywhere.
No one really cared. So when it looks, Like, something's big, you want to try to, you know, get in front of the circus, but then when it turns out to be nothing, then you're like, well, looks like Democratic socialism is pretty big. So I'll Embrace that. Yeah, first need stories are not arguments. Only, you know, deontological principled arguments are what we should focus on. Yeah. Well, with that, why don't we segue into the quotes here?
So, First one on page, 20 anarchism Anarchy as a political concept is a naive floating abstraction without an organized. Government would be at the mercy of the first Criminal Who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang Warfare, but the possibility of human and morality is not the only objection to a in our key, even a society whose every member work fairly rational. And faultlessly moral could not function in a state of Anarchy.
It is the need of objective laws and of an Arbiter for honest. Disagreements, among men that necessitates the establishment of a government. So I want you to respond to that first. Well, I mean it's like so it was said really well on biting the bullet podcast, which I'll give them a plug. It's a bunch of military vets that live in a house together. They're all roommates and they're all endcap Libertarians, except for one of them, but they were the one was in their most recent episode.
They were drinking and they were arguing with the 1 Min artist and the men artists. Did like, a lot of the economic principles of an cap is MM, but had kind of the same argument that Ian ran just presented and talking about. Well, a society without objective laws would just be at the mercy of the first criminal to come along. Well, this is one that we've really talked about a lot on our show together in the past episodes.
We've done, is that what you're really doing is guaranteeing that the criminals because if you have a government that kind of power attracts a certain type of personality. Yeah, and so instead of having the possibility of maybe one criminal comes into adversely except adversely affects Society. You are guaranteeing that a criminal class will exist above everyone else.
When you have a government because that power, it's a monopoly on the initiation of force that power attracts a serpent, a certain type of personality. And instead of Well, you're basically guaranteeing the victimization of everyone else for a privileged class that has the ability to initiate force over everyone else. Giving one group of people a monopoly on lawmaking, does not equal. The result of objective laws.
In fact, if you wanted objective morally Justified consistent laws, you would make sure there wasn't a monopoly and you'd make sure they couldn't collect funding coercively. That people had to voluntarily fun them. That is the first thing, but now you floating abstraction. That's it's just sad when someone who's so brilliant says, it's an IEEE floating abstraction any time you engage in a peaceful interaction. It's in Next thing she says it would be at the mercy of the first criminal.
I don't see again how that justifies one group having a monopoly. Because you can always say all the countries unless there's a United Nations, One World Government. We're just at the mercy of the most powerful country. She says it will lead to gang Warfare. Oh as see as opposed to state is MM where there's not really any wars. There's just kind discussion and free trade but the biggest Warfare that This is between centralized states.
There have been two world wars. There was a Cold War. I mean, so the fear of War does not justify the existence of a state. The state's, the number one cause of war and and they're constantly at war with their own populace. I mean, what is the drug war? But a war on Peaceful people or violently confiscating money under the guise of Taxation initiating sanctions against people that kill the civilians while the rulers just Or less even a society whose every member were fully.
Rational. But basically, she says the need for objective laws. Well, there is a law in America, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, if anything is objective. It's that statement shall not be infringed. And then, there's the First Amendment the judges in the government could not disagree more on what those mean. So even when you have clearly objectively, Of terms the government judges can't agree amongst themselves. So it's not that anarchism is
perfect. Statism has fault. They're both faulty. Neither can have objective that totally total objectivity because they're run by humans. So should humans have total competition and voluntary funding or should some humans have rights know others have that's really the bottom line. So she's saying something that applies towards every Some human beings are faulty and then pinning it on the anarchist system when it applies to her system more than anything else Arbiter for honest.
Disagreements. Again, it's much better to have a voluntarily funded by arbitration agency, that faces competition rather than a coercively funded Monopoly. Well, she's really precluding the possibility of polycentric law and competing forums for the production of laws. And this is something that we've seen throughout history that. I mean, I've done shows on this but Stephan kinsella, again, he
was on a show. Just recently, I it was with Corbett. He dish or with Corbett and he was talking about international law. And I found this myself that in mainstream legal Productions about sorry. Legal Publications and papers about international law. It's, it's pretty well. I mean this idea of polycentric law and law without the state. It's not heterodox. It's not outside of the mainstream. I mean, in that Forum, in international law, it is very much accepted that a polycentric
lead, a legal order can exist. And in fact, has existed throughout Millennia throughout human civilization, so I don't understand how she can just throw. The baby with the bathwater in terms of and I another thing I don't understand is how her statement on Donahue jives. With that quote, when she says that she's the enemy of the initiation of force. Yeah, so what will read the other ones? And she tries to clear it up?
This could be a problem of definitions, where we don't know what she's defining as a government. But because it's really hard even when she tries to Define it in in her, in her other works. But as far as the need for laws, it's much more. It's not like food or water where it's objectively needed for survival. Imagine going to a town. You've never been to.
Without reading any of the laws, or a different state, or a different country without is it possible to go to a different country without reading all the laws that are in that country. Basically, what you do is you almost use the nap universally because if you're like caught stealing, I mean, Otto warmbier stealing in North Korea, it's something. So, it's like, even in North Korea, this totally foreign place, you know, stealing's wrong.
Of course, they're evil. They shouldn't have, you know, done that to him. When I went to France and Italy, I've been to like half of the US and it's not like well, I only know what to do. If I first read the laws, these are Customs that result of Decades of voluntary exchange and people finding out beneficial ways to cooperate. So the claim that we need laws are us terrible things happen. We constantly are ignoring laws. How many laws that are in America? Have you read?
I mean what percentage of the law legislation have you? Really red. Well, how is anyone alive doing things? Of course? It's more of a smokescreen. All right. We got a few more of the keys. So, let's go if a society provided no organized protection.
Against course, it would compel every citizen to go about armed to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door or to join a protective gang of citizens, who would fight other gangs formed for the same purpose, in the spring about the degeneration. Of that Society into the chaos of gang, rule is a rule by Brute Force into Perpetual tribal Warfare of prehistoric savages. The use of physical Force, even its retaliatory.
Use cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible. If a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be Unleashed against him by any of his neighbor's at any moment, whether this neighborhood, this neighbors intentions are Or bad whether their judgment is rational or irrational. Whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorant or by Prejudice or by malice the
use of force against one man. Cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another. Patrick.
Well, I think she's precluding the idea that people generally do not want to risk everything that they have which is their life for small payoff because, you know, without without so the the way that the state operates kind of guarantees that yes, we can we can get into Wars and we can use armed conflict to get what we want, but they socialize the cost in Terms of taxpayers, in terms of the populace will take, I'm talking specifically
about war, but that's what she's kind of talking about police to is that they can recruit these people. They socialize, the cost of it for the most part and then when you lose a few soldiers, or when you lose a few policemen, it doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter because we're drawing from this big, well, but when you put someone out there who really is, Sacrificing everything that they have for not very much benefit. That is kind of its naturally.
It prevents people from doing that from risking everything. And when you don't necessarily you're not relying on, extorting your fellow, man for your own Survival, or your family survival. Why would you just mess with someone else's stuff when you don't really need to? And I think that's that would have to be the reality in the But she's talking about is that while the only way in an anarchist society that we can provide for our families to take
from someone else. It just doesn't really make sense. Yeah, also she's not explaining what species are these things that are, you know, using violence. She's like well people those are individuals will help. Well, then that is the same type of thing that will be a judge or a politician or a banker or a police officer or a military servicemen. So she's saying people will in, will do this. The individuals cannot be left to this. We need government. What is government?
But a collection of individuals on a Pathak level, it's like the gang versus the government. One has a badge. The other is just seen as like, you know, hippies or rebellious militias. So she's not actually making a difference, a principal difference between a police officer and forcing something, and to judge. And she's also assuming that everyone would have to do this thing if the government didn't provide it on. How would that possibly? Possibly enter your mind.
You don't want the government to make car. So everyone has to make their own car. You don't want government to make candles. Everyone has to make their own candles and their own fans and Brew their own coffee, and everyone makes their own cell phones, or should government do it. It's the biggest non sequitur. I think that I've ever come across is, do you want everyone to do things by themselves? Well, no, that's what trade is. That's what cooperation is.
That's what private property rights are in the first place, the ability to own something and then Exchange. And then on that other thing, that's trade. So yeah, she's really missing that out. Also, she is forgetting or not caring to learn that violence is costly. So when you delegate the cost to a group of people who have a recognized, right? No one else does and they collect funds, coercively.
They are more likely to engage in the behavior of violence rather than if they had to Bear the financial cost and the risk to their lives and their family and their reputation. If Why steal something? I stole alcohol from Safeway when I was 16 and people still remind me of it and it's seen as like this terrible thing. Of course, I'm sorry. I did it and everything but Safeways a local grocery store, but government steals trillions annually and people pledge their
allegiance to them. So what I mean, I'm so focused on like one thing I did when I was 16 and they speak the mass murder and kidnapping, theft funded evil bastards are just Shot. That's why there's so much more violence because it's not seen as violence when they do it. And that's what she's not appreciating, that more violence will come when you give people a total violence hall pass, as opposed to just holding them to the same standards. You told any other group of arson?
Yeah. And moreover. We have real life examples of what I you and I were just talking about it and that's the Detroit threat Management Center. I mean, Commander Dale Brown isn't necessarily a voluntary as libertarian Anarchist, but he is a businessman and, you know, in Detroit in some of the worst neighborhoods. He's been able to prevent violence and he doesn't do so violently because, you know, one, he would be sued to, he would lose the lives of the
people. He's trying to protect and lose the lives of his own employees. And so, he comes up with Ds, Collective situations and intact. Tex. And one thing that Ian ran kind of presumes here is that the only way to prevent violence is with violence itself. Well, know that we have locks
for our buildings. We have security cameras, you know, we have these types of things that can and we have, you know, nonviolent tactics D, escalation going up and getting close to someone and talking to them instead of pointing a gun or a taser at them and threatening them. And so the market provides a solution to this. And the we have real life examples of this. Next claim a recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling. Some of the younger Advocates of
freedom, is a weird absurdity. Okay. It's a recent, what its recent? It's befuddling. It's focused on young people. It's weird and it's absurd. What are you what kind of philosopher just engages in like insults in the first half of the Since my point is, is she really is not approaching this topic rationally. Where's everything else? She's golden on. It's like Sam Harris, talking about government.
He's so rational about like all this other stuff and able to think it through but when it comes to government just snorts of mind, control pill, it is a weird absurdity called competing governments accepting the basic premises of modern satus who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of Industry between. Horse and production and who Advocate government ownership of businesses.
The proponents of competing governments take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business. It should also be applied to government instead of a single monopolistic government. They declare there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area competing for the allegiance of individual citizens. With every citizen free to shop and to patronize whatever government. He chooses. Okay, that is part.
One of this objection. What are your responses to that? I mean, that whole argument is entirely useless without defining the term, government. Of course, of course, it is. And that, that's how sophistry is allowed to continue when she just called something government. It's the service. The state is claiming to monopolize. That's what they're saying should be voluntarily funded. Should be privatized, should be
voluntary sized. Not saying there should be different flags or different, you know, necessarily what are what is competition. If not the existence of no world government. Right. Now. We have 200 and something competing governments is bad. As these governments are, it's better than one world government. They're like, well, we need a powerful government in case the Saddam Hussein's get in charge. Well, what if the Saddam Hussein's get in charge of the world government?
So, hurt cleaning. The problem with competition is bad, things might happen. So we need a monopoly. Again, the same thing applies, not only applies to Monopoly, but it applies more soda Monopoly because anything you can list that might be bad of one of the 50 states. Doing let's say there were 50 instead of one anything bad. You can List Alabama will bring back slavery or something that is or bring back the draft. I should say that. Also applies. To the federal level.
Anything you say about small can be said about big and is more dangerous when it applies to you. So this this is just, it's so sad to see someone so good. Make these ridiculous comparisons. Well, voluntarily funded competition is superior to coercively funded Monopoly in every industry, in every aspect of life. Well, I think the thing, she's really mixing up. Up here is that there's no talk about the legitimized Monopoly on the initiation of force.
And the legitimacy is, I think the operant word in that phrase because You know, the way that she's phrasing it. I think she's right, is that if you had competing governments within, the same geographical area and all of these governments had a monopoly on the initiation of force or violence, you're going to get Warfare. You're going to get the same kind of anarchic military militarized. Chaos that everyone kind of
talks about. Of course, when you have different groups that are competing different groups with the, a legitimate monopolize, a Ation on the initiation of force even within the same territory. They're all going to be fighting over who is better but volunteerism or Anarchy would be meaning that no one has the limit H, the legitimate Monopoly
on the use of force. And so I don't know what her disconnect is here in terms, but I think it really has to do with this idea of legitimacy because if you have different militarized groups running around in the same geographical area, Or competing within the same geographical area and everyone recognizes that they are legitimate in shooting
people and threatening people. Then of course, you're going to get chaos, but if no one except for those competing groups, recognizes the legitimacy of those people to do what they're doing, then that's when it becomes, you know, tough to bring people into the fold. It's like herding cats, but that's when you get volunteerism. And that is what we are advocating. Is that no one recognized. The legitimate initiation of force period. So where should we?
Yeah, so so instead of saying that I think what she's thinking is, there's a government that has extra writes a lot of other places and group should also have extra rights. That's not what the anarchist is saying. The anarchists are saying those rights are illegitimate.
And then even if I have a security firm, I have no more rights than Patrick and his ten closest friends than me and my Employees, the difference is the security firm, allocates resources, time and effort into learning how to prevent those things? But no one has any more rights than anyone else. So I think she is. I think it's the word Force. She's not recognizing defensive Force versus the initiation and government.
She is assuming it's a collective way of achieving the ends of securing persons and property and that's totally false. There are, as you mentioned, there's the nest door cameras. There's locks. There's guns. There's knives, there's there's numchucks. There's a ton of non-governmental ways. You can protect your life. In fact, most of people protecting their lives is against the government who was like, and gosh, there's so much
insecurity. Like with when you have a government that total violence is going to break out. Are we going to go to war with Venezuela? Oh, no. No, okay, maybe. Be North Korea. Oh, no, maybe Iran up. Maybe China or Russia is our enemy. So this illusion that property is safe when there's a state and people are secure but when there's a when there's no Monopoly on violence. Oh, then bad things might
happen. This is the worst condition when you say you guys have right to no one else does and then everyone watches them saying. Oh, please don't start a nuclear war, but if you go to war with Iran and Russia and China are on their side, I mean, dear heavens. Well, you know the war that baby's been pushing for for four decades since since you wrote his book in the 80s.
So the she's basically engaged in in the illusion that government equals security and non-government means anything might happen when in reality spontaneous order and peaceful coexistence tend to emerge more often in the absence of a state then under state. Yeah, and for the sake of our Rudder at going forward, maybe between our conversations. We should adopt the same definitions as Mark passio does in his natural law series or as violence when we say the term
violence. That should be reserved for the illegitimate, immoral initiation of force and see I'm mixing the terms again, violence is the immoral initiation of violence and force is the legitimate use of Do you know which one I'm referring to more cassio's natural law seminar. Well, yes, and this is actually one of the questions I asked him in our, for our interview. I say, What's the difference
between violence and force? So, violence is the initiation of aggression and aggression is an Uninvited course of interference. So that is violent. So, I come up to Patrick and with a knife and say, give me your money. And you shoot me in response. You have used Force. I used violence. There's only one violent act because I am making a peaceful situation violent. I'm turning it into the initiation of aggression. You are using defense self
defense to stop the aggressor. That is not violence. That is force. Just as you would have the right to use Force to lift up this water bottle, and the scientific sense. You would have the force to stop a violent action from being engaged in. So yes, that is the important difference. Okay. All right. What's the quote? Then? What, what's our next quote then? Well, she goes on to say, remember that, forcible.
Restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer, has to offer does not justify whether or not it's better achieved through a monopoly rather than on Monopoly. I don't know if there should be one. Firm. Two firms, 1000 firms that Should be the result of spontaneous order, an individual voluntary Association voluntary funding. So that's just such a weak line. That's all government should do. What governments so bad and it's so immoral. Why should it do anything?
She's not explaining why this is in principle different than government making food. I mean, I can live without being defended for 48 hours. I can live without food for 48 hours. Oh, but then, you'll have gang Warfare. I'm going to grow. Food here. Now I will and then people will shoot each other out. Then there will be mass murder. It's nonsense. So just very weak stuff. Ask yourself. What a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean, do you have any response to those
two sentences? So say that again, what would a competition? Enforce mean here? Here's the statement. Remember that forcible Restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself. What? a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean, Hmm. Well, I wonder would have to mean, I would think is that you, you would be able to, I mean, so you have in the libertarian and capistan.
A lot of has been said about hop has version of, you know, homeowners Societies or what the be in your neighborhood or if you could, you know, voluntarily acquire land like that. I mean, I would think that If you needed to, you would ascribe to a certain protective agency or certain dispute agency and you would call them up when you need them and they would have contracts with other agencies to solve disputes.
A lot of it would be kind of liquidated in the sense that a lot of these Arrangements would be prearranged beforehand. A lot of the way that insurance companies handle car accidents, specifically the property damage from car accidents. and, I just don't see exactly where it would devolve into the kind of violence that she's talking about because the interest for each agency, whatever agency you have they are looking to solve the dispute with the least amount of violence because
violence equals cost. At the end of the day, you're going to have to pay for all this damage. You're going to have to reimburse your customers. If you end up responding to a situation and someone dies. Well, first of all, you're gonna have to really Burst the cost. Second of all you might get sued in a lengthy litigation process and third of all other. Your other customers are going to see well ABC dispute resolution companies showed up and they ended up going to war with d e.
F dispute Agency company. Maybe we won't hire their services anymore because while we don't like our stuff, getting blown up or our dog shot or flashbang grenades being thrown. Into our children's cribs, so maybe we won't go that route anymore. And then so ABC dispute,
resolution company loses money. And they will continue to lose money and customers, and they have no way to recoup that loss because they don't have the power to extort money from people violently against their, will they have to satisfy the customer? So that's how I would Envision it. Long story, short, she's not justifying the existence of a state. When she says what comp what will competition look like, put playing the psychic game, asking you to be a psychic right now.
Again, there are competition between there is competition between the current existing countries because there isn't necessarily a one world government. And so to say the existence of competition will lead to unsound undesirable results. Therefore one Monopoly is legitimate. You're not actually making the case and I think she's making more of a reality claim. Like just let your mind run if you different people doing different things and forcing different laws.
Well, you already have every business that has a product deals with 50 other businesses to acquire the products to make their end product. They have disputes all the time. So what they do is they recognize it's both Their best interest to go to a third-party Arbiter and the existence of a state obviously does not stop disputes. The biggest most violent property rights violating disputes are the result of government Wars of legislation
that confiscates property. I mean, when I saw the Washington Post headline of civil asset, forfeiture this year has now surpassed home robberies or robberies. It's like that's similar. Asset forfeiture alone, that's not even the feds inflation policy that hurts the purchasing power of the dollar. That's not even taxation. That's not even compliance with regulation. So, um, again, these are just terrible things that could
happen. Of course, there's going to be disputes in the absence of a state. The existence of a state does not stop disputes. It makes them more lethal, honey. So gosh, it's just devastating. Don't meet your Heroes. Don't read about your Heroes. We're just gonna have to start
our own thing here. One cannot call this Theory, a contradiction in terms since it obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms competition and government holy projection nor can one call it a floating abstraction since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be come can credit eyes as at all. I don't even know him. Concretize. Can't be concrete at all. Not even roughly or approximately one illustration will be sufficient.
Okay. So this is, this is a litmus test. When someone says, I have one argument, I have one illustration, just listen to this. So this is her best one. And everything else is worse than this. So if we can get a hold of this one, then I think we're good. One illustration will be sufficient. Suppose. Mr. Smith a customer of government, a suspect that his next-door neighbor. Mr. Jones, a customer of government be has robbed him, a squad of police a proceeds to mr.
Jones's house, and is met at the door by a squad of police be who declared that? They do not accept the validity of mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of government day. What happens? Then you take it from there. R. This is the best she can do. I mean this was answer pretty succinctly by David D Friedman in the Machinery of freedom. And I guess what? I already outlined about competing dispute resolution systems, would take care of this pretty easily.
A lot of these would be a lot of these agreements would be enforced beforehand through contractual relations between these resolution firms. Okay, you don't think that they could foresee. See the possibility of one client stealing from another client and they're being a dispute. I think it would be set up beforehand. That there would be a burden of proof. So mr. A from with government or dispute resolution service a suspect that his neighbor be was stealing from him.
Well, it is beforehand in Mysteries contract with his dispute resolution agency. There is an agreement between government, a and government be and Man is not the right term for these agencies, but there's an agreement beforehand that there is some kind of a burden of proof that a customer of government. A would have to present to government. Be before they could go forward with any kind of recruitment or lawsuit, there.
It would probably be a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is probable, cause it might be probable cause, which is lower than a preponderance probable cause is like, 30 or 40 percent sure. That this happened preponderance is Fifty percent sure. But so you suspect that one of your that our clients do from one of your clients.
Well, let's let's do like a warrant will review this evidence and information and if there is if you satisfy the standard, then we'll go forward from there with the legal proceeding. If everyone shoots each other. Everyone's going to lose money in customers. I mean, it's just pretty simple. That's why it's just incredible. Who has the incentive for there? To be a shootout and a bunch of people died in a bunch of people lose money.
So my first approach is the parties involved have the incentive to come up with a peaceful resolution. Just as any restaurant works with Visa Mastercard American Express, they work with financial institutions. Those people constantly get into disputes cell. Phone companies constantly get into. Fields, you know, internet servers or there's people who
produce the product. There's people who make the product and then there's the retail, there are constantly disputes between those three organizations. And they don't say, all right, we're going to court is Judge Judy free within the next month or so, for us to bring this crew. They use private arbitration all the time. And then my sarcastic answer is what what's going to happen. If if there's ever a dispute, there's going to be World War. And then the world war is going
to happen again. Then they're gonna nuke a hundred thousand innocent people. Then there's going to be a cold war in which 3 million Vietnamese people die. That's what's going to happen. If there's ever a dispute between neighbor a and neighbor be, I mean, come on, how do you not see that? The existence of a monopoly? Coercively, funded state does not address this problem. It exacerbates it, huh. Just that's just terrible. It's I mean precisely her whole
point going back. The other quote about, you know, we have these, if we have these competing governments. It will just be chaos, you know, the Can same competing governments within a different geographical area. I mean, we really already have that. I don't think she's wrong but we have that's illustrative of the international scene, where we have different states interacting with their own monopolies on violence. And that's precisely the point that you just made.
Next one, the common denominator of such Advocates of competing government is the desire to escape from objectivity. Objectivity requires a very long conceptual chain, and very abstract principles to act on when aim to deal with men. Rather than, with ideas IE with the men of their own gang Bound by the same concrete, concrete is the way you pronounce that. Yes, desired. So, in other words, the only Reason people sort of advocate anarchism is their desire to
escape from objectivity. Not necessarily. The only reason I objectively am against government is not because it tends to be corrupt. Or there tend to be lying. Psychos that are attracted to the situation. It's that you cannot justify a contradiction that is embracing objectivity as opposed to what she is saying.
Right here. I'm not saying any group has more rights than Another. It's embracing subjectivism to say, well, this group has rights that no one else has and it's okay for this group to do something, but not this group because for a long time, this group has had the title, The Congress group. That is the total embracing and opposition of objectivity, Patrick your response to that.
Yeah. I mean precisely that I think that I mean, I believe the non-aggression principle while it's not, you know, the end all be all. It's a good litmus test at least, but I think it is an objective litmus test. It's like you said, it's completely objective and it seems like the classical liberal stance or the argument is, and maybe Ian. Rand would agree with this. Is that the purpose of government is to protect life. Liberty and property, right?
Well in protecting life. Liberty and property. You have to violate life, liberty, and property of everyone. Underneath this government. It's just a contradiction in terms. And there are some times where it's like, okay guy is knocked out. Is it okay to kidnap someone against their will and take them somewhere else? No. Okay. Well what if the guys in a coma and he needs surgery is that okay to take him against his will and bring him to the
hospital? Okay. Yes. So even though you can find individual examples of where you can do the opposite of what these principles say. We have to realize what the state is, you're saying some people have rights other people do. Out and even though I can sometimes justify forcibly taking someone in a coma and taking them against their will to a hospital because I'm making the Judgment. Well, if I could get their permission, they would say yes, that's me doing it.
And I'm not claiming to have rights. No one else has coming up with an example of when violating, a principle would be justified in no way, justifies the contradiction of statism and the institutionalized embracing of a contradiction. No. All right. We got two more here. Painful. All right picture, a band of strangers. Marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready as opposed to governments. Who would just never do that? Never intimidate a populist.
When confronted by police The Leader of the Band, announces me. And the boys are only here to see that Justice is done. So you have no right to interfere with us according to libertarian and are In such a confrontation, the police are morally bound to withdraw on pain of betraying. The rights of self-defense and free trade. How sad is that? They're marching down? What are they marching down Main Street? All right.
So the owner and organization of Main Street has the right to determine what is a legitimate threat and what is not, they have the right to exclude people if they feel from their private property. In fact, only the anarchist has a real objection to this because the state is says, well that's public property, anyone can go on it. But the owner of Main Street would say, yeah, you can have a gun. Yeah, you can have an M16. Yeah, you can't have a grenade launcher.
You're gonna have to go. If you don't go you'll be met with our guns. The fact that this is going to happen. All the time is ridiculous. It happens mostly with governments and it would be at the discretion of the private property owner. Some places would allow tanks. Other places wouldn't allow knives. So, this again is a swing and a miss according to the bound of free trade.
Yeah, it would be decided by private property owners, whether the people Were allowed to stay with their machine guns or not. Patrick. I mean just as yourself or just picture the people in your community. There's a bunch of namby-pamby liberals running around. Are they going to want to take the wife and kids to a grocery store that has armed pulley? Like armed Riot, cops out front with grenade launchers and M16s. I mean no is the grocery store owner really going to Keep these.
First of all, is the grocery store owner going to pay a bunch of thugs to sit around with guns and plate carriers and you know, helmets and everything. And is he going to want to still pay for it? When none of the families in the neighborhood are going to want to come to the grocery store and buy their goods, with armed, security. Guards, like, staring them down. I wouldn't I wouldn't go to that grocery store. And just apply the same thing to say to them and the principal is no different.
Her worry is not solved by the existence of a state say, a band of strangers, marches down Trump street with their guns at the ready. Well, but instead of strangers, they all know each other and they're part of a costume camouflage where and group called army or military or Marines when confronted by I don't know who the equivalent would be the people who live there. Hey, we don't want you marching down our Streets, we don't want a police state. Then what happens?
So she sets herself up. She she again, it's using me. Hey, bad imperfect thing, might happen. Therefore governments Justified. Well, hold on bed, uncomfortable, prop, dangerous thing, could happen that in no way, justifies the legitimacy of them Monopoly government. It's like, it's literally, like, saying bad things might happen. Don't you agree in the world, bad things might happen. And of course, I agree. It's the world.
Yeah. So therefore, the Catholic church should have a monopoly on laws and regulations. No, no, that does not follow from the fact that bad things - what do you mean the Catholic Church? Government has no more right than the Catholic church or Scientology or Walmart or the Circle K gas station to impose that. So again, it's another non sequitur any predictions on Main Street scenario.
I mean, what about Kent State? I mean, I would say that or, I mean, what about the LA riots when the this police presence that Ian Rand wanted utterly failed to protect business owners and you have South Koreans on rooftops with their own weapon shooting away rioters. Was it South Koreans? I believe it was Koreans, right?
They were Korean swarams. I don't know if they eat from the North or came voluntarily from the South, but but yeah, that mirror, you are talks about that book in her book questions and answers to libertarianism. Yeah. Okay. So finally, the last one private force is force not authorized by the government. I don't think I've read this already unless you just making a distinction without a principal difference, not validated by its procedural safeguards and not subject to its supervision.
That is correct in the same way. Unlicensed industry is not authorized by the government. I don't know, please don't go anywhere. Bad has to regard such private Force as a threat. IE as a potential violation of Dividual rights Jesus. Dude. I have not read this one in barring such private Force. The government is retaliate is retaliating against the threat in borrowing against such private cars. The government is retaliating against us Prime G dumbass in
what government has the right? No one else. Does they get a monopoly on all the weapons? Because a potential weapon in the hands of a private individual can threaten the state's Monopoly. You haven't even Justified. The reason this group of individuals has a said Monopoly, in the first place has extra rights. That no one else had if they get their rights from the people and the people didn't have the right in the first place. How can they delegate it to another group? Dude?
That is so freaking sad. I mean dude, did you advocate for private gun ownership? You know, what? Oh, that would be. That should be our next one. We can go to the genes and see what you said. But I know the head of the iron rain Institute. Yaron Brook is not a gun guy at all. Really? No. No, it was very anti 2nd Amendment saying that, that is in the realm of forest, government should be in the realm of force. Even if you did have all the
guns, government has more guns. What matters is ideas? Not? Force. And that's, that's just wrong. That. That's just obviously wrong. They were two cops killed in New York City. And as a result, was it Bloomberg or DeBlasio? Who said, you know what? That's it. We're not going to be patrolling freaks. We're only going to come out now if there's like a real immediate threat to which all the end caps around the world said Praise Jesus, so no increasing
likelihood. That governments will have to bear the cost of their life or risk their life. Them from engaging in such tollett arianism dude, that might have been one of the worst things I've ever heard from any objectivist libertarian cap. Private Force should be Barb and government should have a, yeah, that is just so bad. And as I said, she hasn't Justified the Monopoly.
She hasn't said, why government group has rights private group X does not have I hate to end it. On that note, but Heavens what works? Hold on. Go. Go and look up the gun. Quote before we go. Do you have any response to what's to that one? I mean Nothing beyond what you already said it. I mean that's a totalitarian mindset. but just tell the pashtun people of Afghanistan that Or or you know, she actually does defined government
in the G section. A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power, to enforce certain rules of social contact and conduct in a given geographical area. Nope, that also applies to corporations neighborhoods and hmos. Yeah, so she doesn't distinguish between initiating violence on property. You have not acquired versus Offer to you have acquired. That's the difference between. I get the rules of my house.
And if I build in an apartment complex, I get to make the rules, but you don't get to make the rules for the country, right? Different between the two monopolies. I've acquired it through voluntary funding original appropriation, homesteading voluntary Exchange in contract. Government has said that over there, bite me signing. This paper is mine and they get it from another group of psychos who been acquired voluntarily in
the first place. This is really a dumpster fire, Keith. I didn't dude. I had not read that last one. I swear, what? It's not under G. It's not on the guns. Maybe it's under second amendment, we can, but we can find it later, because I don't think we've done one, just on gun rights. I know it comes up all the time. Yeah. No, we haven't probably be a pretty popular too. But that's three pages on sex. So gun, something has to be in here. We'll do that next time. Any final words up at.
Oh, no, I think that's Other than just a regular plugs as we close up here, you know, maybe I didn't miss too much by not studying, Ian Rand. Now, we'll get too bad. We can't get Michael malice on to talk about Ian ran, because he is both an anarchist and really likes R. And so what what this is a blind spot. Just like Thomas Jefferson, had so many brilliant things to say. Yeah, but they engaged in the contradiction of slavery.
There's a lot of nice people. Who are Democrats and Republicans, who have no problem supporting the murdering military, who, what is worse than that? It's bad as regulating and taxing our, if you support mass murder, just because of some group does it. It's okay for that group. That's as bad as it gets. So once we just, if we can't rule out those people from. So being good people. I think I rank R and still gets a pass. We'll have to look more into that. But thank you for having me on
great great time. Always. Yeah, of course, of course, so as we close up here, all the regular plugs. We are doing a live streamed patreon, Google Hangout where our patreon, our patrons can come in and actually talk with us and we'll be recording that and putting that on patreon. So maybe we'll do that again in the future of this is pretty successful.
But if you want to become a patron and get access to benefits like that, and many more patreon.com forward slash Liberty, weekly also our Amazon affiliate link Liberty weekly dotnet forward slash. On where you can do all your regular Amazon shopping at no cost to you, and we get some bones from that email list to Liberty, weekly dotnet forward, slash email, and any plugs that you got. Keith Keith nights. Don't tread on anyone on YouTube. I'll put that in the show.
Notes page, Keith. You've been doing such good work for such a long time, buddy. Well, thanks so much. I try to get at least one video out every four days. I tried. It will get get something new out and I got a great collage. It's another long collage. But it's the equipment. It's still less than one day of schooling, which we did five days a week for 12 or 16 years. So my next collage, it's terrific. I'll just tell you, it's Jan hell, feld's.
Socratic method. It's the best of his interviews of him. Just grilling these inconsistent politicians. So subscribe on YouTube and bitch, you because YouTube they are cracking down. They just band like a ton of Crowder's videos, just because the guy from vaux had written a complaint on Twitter. Yeah. Moms are so yeah. Yeah YouTube and bitch you everything you get on YouTube, You'll also get on bit shoot. It's just a great place to have
things archived. Yeah. It's just a matter of time, just a matter of time. So well with that will close up. Thanks. Everybody show notes. Can be found at Liberty. Weekly dotnet forward slash 122 piece.