Welcome to Keith's night. Don't try it on anyone. This is for those who believe that libertarian anarchism is a ridiculous. Nonsensical, utopian, pipe dream. That's never going to be achieved. I'm curious whether or not this person would say that they support murder or not. Because I mean if you're against murder, I mean, what do you think we're going to live in a world without murder?
Well, no, you can still embrace the principle even without knowing that all billions of people will never engage in it. You still stayed on the principle that whether or not a murderous world will ever be achieved you still are in principle against acts of murder unjustly. Taking the life of another person. Do you support slavery? I would ask this person.
Do you support forced labor? What you think we're going to live in a world where no one in the world ever forces anyone to do anything against their will you're a utopian ridiculous nonsensical person who should not be part of Bait, well, the same thing applies for rape as well. But we're never going to live in a world without rape. So why be against rape? Well, the same logic applies. We're never going to live in a world without government.
Okay, mr. Psychic, who knows what billions of people will do hundreds of years from now. I'm still going to stand on the ground of the non-aggression Principle as a way of, as the only morally Justified way of people functioning in society, the same thing applies to theft. So how How is it that they can have all these principles there against slavery? Murder, rape, theft assault.
But when we say, we support the non-aggression principle and don't believe the state should be held to any separate standards were called utopian ridiculous. Far out, thinkers who are totally extreme and out of the ordinary. When in reality to be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified and that states necessarily employee aggression. And Therefore, that states, and the aggression, they necessarily
employ are unjustified. It's just an ethical view, just as anti murder anti-theft anti-rape antiassault anti-slavery. We just take these things to their logical. Conclusion, accordingly. Anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either aggression is Justified or be States in particular minimal states. Do not necessarily employee aggression. That right one for someone says, well, there's been no working,
Anarchy, blah, blah, blah, blah. I mean, first of all, that's that's sort of ridiculous in so far as even if there was no such thing as Anarchy, that had ever been proven to be stable in the past. So what? So what I mean, how ridiculously conservative can you be and say, well, until it's proven. I'm not going to believe it. Until it's proven. I'm not going to believe it. Right. I mean, that's just ridiculous. I mean, if that was the case, we'd still be in the caves,
right? Every single Advance, whether it is an Ethics, or a knowledge or technology, or sociology, or whatever, any sort of Advance is, it has an untested aspect to it? I mean, this obviously is not somebody who's ever had any exposure to our Interaction with Venture capitalists or all about you, put this huge value in.
Then the more unproven it is, the more value there is potentially in it. And so, even if a, is somebody going to say, well, you can't show me a thing that it's sort of seventeenth-century, you can't show me a society that has ever gotten rid of slavery. So you're getting rid of slavery is you should never think that it's a good thing, like you should never assume that it's a good thing. And so that's just not, that's just not, that's not true at all. That's that's a valid approach.
So even if there was no such thing, historically, as or in the, in the sort of present situation as Anarchy, that was stable and worked then. It would not be a valid objection. However, of course there are, you know, multi Hundred Year examples of societies that existed without governments such as Iceland and shorter periods of time in Pennsylvania and so on and so tons of examples of societies that have existed without a government.
And of course, I would say that this gentleman his own life in his own life, he exist without a government, but even more fundamentally, there are lots of other examples about how a lack of centralized Instead of reading instability breeds stability. So, for instance, in the realm of price, we all know that socialist calculation as proven by Von mises was, is an impossible situation.
You can ever have a central planner who is ever able to validly allocate the prices for things because without a free market, there's no way of knowing localized requirements and general, consumer demand for products. Price is an enormous computer printout of need and desire.
And so the problem is socialist calculation, of course, is that you can never get a central planner who's able to create any kind of stability when you whenever you have Central planning extraordinary, losses starvation's lineups, hungers incredible instability results. And so there's an example where government produces vast amounts of instability. And in the free market, there is no Central Agency for setting
price, right? The only thing that sets prices in each individual's the aggregation of each Was demand and of course willing to willingness to actually part with with money or two to get a particular good. And we find that prices turn out to be. Remarkably stable overall. And I'm talking about sort of, in the prior to the introduction of centralized coercive control of, and privatize control of currency.
Right? So, you know, a loaf of bread cost about the same in 1900 as it cost in 1800, although, of course standard of living has gone up considerably because wages have like tripled. But, you know, there's an example of an extraordinary amount of stability coming out of a free mind, more or less, a free market approach to to the question of price. And so, from that standpoint, it's important to understand that a lack of centralized. Coercion does breed extraordinary stability, right?
So if you remember what cell phones were like early on, you could barely get a signal without standing with like tin foil. Wrapped around your head appointing your phone directly at the satellite and tracking. As it went past, making sure there were no trees in the way and there's been no centralized coercion saying now, all of these cell phone companies, they have to offer.
All of these cross-marketing cross-promotional benefits so that they each charge each other and give you service just about anywhere in the world, whether it's cell phone service. Nobody's given them any directive to. But of course, your cell phone service has stabilized enormously since this sort of staff was introduced.
So there's there's another example of how a lack of centralized coercion breeds, an extraordinary, kind of stability, and you could sort of go on and on about this kind of stuff, right? I mean that there were no agencies that regulated, the widths of railroad tracks, yet. Every railroad manufacturer On Any Given continent always worked with the same width, right? There was no one that said, well, they have to be at a know like two feet apart and it has to be regulated that way never
happened, right? But you get this extraordinary. LT. Right. No one says that everyone has to handle TCP IP packets in the same way, but all isps and now networks do. The handle them in the same way because of course the price of deviating from a standard that everyone else accepts even in the absence of central regulation is far too costly.
The fallacy of non anticipation consists of supposing that everything worth doing or saying, has already been done or said any new idea is rejected on the grounds that if it were any good, it would already be part of current wisdom. Proposals are rejected because they have not been anticipated. If tobacco is really so harmful. How come people didn't Bennett years ago. They didn't know nowadays more people live long enough to experience the adverse.
And we now have more techniques for measuring such things. The central Assumption of the fallacy is unwarranted. Progress is made on several fronts, including the scientific and the social new ideas are constantly being adopted. And there is no justification for supposing that our ancestors would have found them all the presumption that they did intrudes, irrelevant material into the argument. Why is though the sages of old probably were Were we can no
more presume in them. The totality of wisdom, then we can assume complete stupidity if Breakfast Television is all that good. Why is it taking so long for it to appear? Because we didn't realize that people wanted even more Pap with their morning milk. It is not just products and processes which are revolutionized by invention. The same is true of changes in our living patterns. People didn't need these long Christmas holiday years ago. Why should they now?
They probably did need them years ago. They just couldn't afford them. The same fallacy would have supported and no doubt did the continuance of child Labour in mines and factories. The fallacy of non anticipation is a great comfort to those who while possessing a conservative disposition cannot actually think of any arguments against the changes, which are put forward, mister. Chairman, this proposal has been kicked around for more than 20 years. If there were any Merit to the
idea at all. It would have been implemented long before. Now the beauty of this is that your current rejection will serve as extra evidence against it in the future. Perhaps, the reasons for path projection were equally frivolous. To give added effect to the fallacy. You can enumerate. Some of the Phantom Legions who could have taken up the idea, but did not their numbers appear to be ranged against the idea, like yourself, even though they might simply never have thought of it.
Are we to assume that we are cleverer than the thousands of the very learned and competent people over the years who could have acted on a proposal such as this but wisely refrained from doing so. Any more than Beethoven was cleverer than the millions who could have written his Symphonies, but did not do. So, you will finding fallacy extraordinarily useful in resisting Trends towards
emancipation. After all, if there were any marriage and having women and children participate in decisions, what did not have been discovered long ago. The same approach will help you to stand up against independent holidays, dining out, taking exercise. Highs or eating courgettes. If there were any connection between drinking eight pints of beer a day and obesity, don't you think that countless beer drinkers would have seen it by now? Why should they? They can't even see that toes?