Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone. This is a book summary and Analysis of Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy two essays on Market. Anarchism essay. One is titled private law as a to is titled private defense. The thesis of the book is a system of private law, means that people who can't come to an agreement on their own will literally seek the opinion of a third party similar to how today, Judges don't write laws,
make laws and pass laws a judge. Renders an opinion from your local judge, all the way up to a supreme court. Murphy's saying simply a system of voluntarily funded competition is superior to the coercively funded Monopoly of the state now that everything's going to be perfect. He mentions in the introduction. A question is the market. Capable of defining and protecting property, rights markets, do a lot of great things. They distribute food, clothing medicine, pots, pans lights,
Furniture cups computers. Televisions Mouse is microphones, can a free market defend and Define property rights. Now, also, not only can they do them. Of course, they'll fall short because markets are made up of people. Can they do so in an equal or better manner than the state can? And he says, yes, the market will not only be more efficient. It would also be more Equitable.
So how different is the power that I have from the power that John McCain had when he was alive or me versus Ted Cruz or me versus LC or me versus Donald Trump. Is a great power differential. They have the ability with their Pals and Congress to pass laws in force people to do things. They otherwise wouldn't be able to do whereas. Let's take me and Jeff Bezos. How much better is his TV than mine. It's definitely better buzz it. But is it like a hundred thousand times better?
Just because he's a hundred thousand times richer? How much better words? His computer. How much better is his food? How much better is his wine? Granted? All of those are probably better. But not much better. There's more equality in the free market and there's less equality when it comes to things. Like courts, are rich person's much more likely to get off,
scot-free in court. Wealthier people have much better schools than the state because the state doesn't try to appeal to a voluntary, purchasing customer basis. Now, to essays on Market anarchism. What does he mean? By anarchism? He has the word chaos in the title will. EU means word, Anarchy from the Greek prefix without, or the absence of, and the Greek noun archon meeting master or ruler. Anarchy, does not mean without rules. It literally means without rulers without Masters.
Now, what is the difference between here are the rules in my house? Here are the rules in my business and here are the rules of the country? Well, they're different in size. But that doesn't get to the heart of the issue. The difference is a ruler claims
the right to initiate violence. Jus when you have not voluntarily contracted with them on property, they have voluntarily acquired, or acquired justly, through original appropriation, that is the difference between here are the rules of the hotel, and if you don't like America, you can move to Guatemala. The print, the moral obligation is not on me to leave the country but on status to stop advocating the initiation of violence.
Murphy says, here are some examples of non-coercive non-central planned things that we see in society language, who invented language. What was that person's name? Can I see those Maps? Well, this was something a little more spontaneous who invented science.
Well, this is science is a process millions of people engage in. We seek authorities Newton, Einstein, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, we seek He's but none of them have the right to coercively rule us or initiate violence against peaceful people who who's in charge of inventing, math, who invented the Arts or movies or plays or paintings? Well, these are a lot of things that are row. Spontaneously money, the medium of exchange who invented philosophy.
How is the central planning of philosophy? Who decides on what is historically accurate? A lot of these things are done through what's referred to, as As spontaneous order, the usual example, is the pencil who invented the pencil. Well, literally no one can make it because it involves granite and involves just take wood alone. Who chops down the wood. So, do the people who chopped down the wood, are they, the inventors of the pain? Well, no, because they can't get
there without driving there. So it's them and the people who made the cars, but the people who make the cars by the tires. You invented the tires. Well, how do those people live? They live off food who invented that food. Another words. There is no one person or group of people planning. All the things that lead to the pencil being created. But there's a lot of different steps and a lot of people involved.
So, and it's so complex that you can't have a central planner if you want anything like this to be successful Murphy. Asks now consider before we get into how laws going to work in the absence of Of a state or a coercively funded Monopoly. Have you ever gone to a different city, Las Vegas? Have you ever gone to a different city without reading? All the rules, and all the laws and all the legislation in that city. Did you enter that City and not
know what to do? Everyone's killing each other because no one's read the laws. Well, no, you can go from City to City without reading laws. I recently went to Las Vegas to see the Criss Angel show. I read zero of the law. I was, and I didn't, there wasn't shooting. There wasn't violence, or wasn't killing. They were just people trading. All right. Well, that's on the city. Basis. What if You go to like a totally different state on the total other side of the country. New York.
Do you have to sit there and read the laws this way? You know what the laws are this way? You can cooperate and exchange with people know the law is an
arbitrary thing. That's written down on paper that people don't even know what it means in the first place in America. We have the First Amendment which in short says, Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition, the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, let's say you have a law that is so plain and simple. What does that La mean? Does that? I mean, you can't burn an American flag. That's what some judges say. Some judges say that means you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. Some mean, some judges say that that freedom of speech, law means you can't share secrets with quote the enemy in a time of War. It also means you can't plan to overthrow the state. It also means you can't libel someone. It also means you can't publish
threats. Someone also means you can't slander people. I mean, how many is that implied at all in that law? No. So the idea that law is this objective thing that exists and if we don't have its current objectivity with the state's Infinite Wisdom, then we just have this this chaotic. No one knows what to do, lawlessness. No, not at all. I've actually even been to a different continent. I've been to Italy.
I read none of the laws. I hardly knew who Mussolini was didn't know who the Prime Minister was. I went there and for about a week, I went to Cinque Terre, Rome and Florence and know terrible things happened. I made 50 exchanges between shops restaurants. I stayed at a hotel. I took a bus tour. Met people went to a bar, went to a karaoke place all without reading the laws. Does government really establish
a law that everyone knows? And once you cross this place, your subject to different laws and thankfully there are laws or else there would be chaos. No, same things applies to even go further east, go to Russia. Oh, before I go. I have to read what Putin and the KGB tell us to do when really, this is an idea promoted by John has nests, where he has a article titled, the myth of the rule of law where he He defines Anarchy, Anarchy refers to a society.
Without a central political Authority, as we can see Las Vegas, New York. Italy, and Russia are in a state of Anarchy because there's no United Nations, you know, run by the pope, who decides every law, there should be because then there's chaos between countries. But it also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of orwellian Newspeak, in which a I think the same name to two different concepts, effectively Narrows the range of
thought. For if a lack of government is identified with the lack of order. No one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this unon quiz itive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question, whether government is really productive of order popular support. Support for government would almost instantly collapse. John has Nest professor of law at Georgetown University.
Now again, we are back to the two ways of arranging an industry. You we could have voluntarily funded competition or we could have a coercively funded Monopoly. The first example, Robert Murphy gives is the example of a contract. He says, well, it's very likely according to how humans currently act in their self-interest that an employer May. Right out of contract and says anyone who wants to be an employee earn money. So they could exchange goods in the marketplace.
Will say, I hereby vow to not steal from company X signed the, you know, arbitration company. Why? Now, there is something to keep in mind. When discussing, you know, privately voluntarily funded competing agencies, is the fallacy of unobtainable perfection. This is when the arguments for and against courses of actions are assessed.
It is important to remember that the choice has to be made, but made from the available Alternatives, all of them might be criticized for their imperfections as might the status quo. So another words. What if an unjust law is passed. Yeah, that could definitely happen. What if an unjust law is just randomly enforced by a firm. Yeah, that is definitely something that can happen. Both under private law and under
statism law. Do you agree with all the laws that all the governments of past, all the mass murder, all the Wars, all the kidnapping, all the enslavement, under the guise of a draft of a theft under? Taxation. Yeah, private firms might pass unjust laws. That's why it's so important for us to recognize that they don't have rights. Any other person or group of persons have. Unless one of the options is perfect.
The imperfections of the others are insufficient grounds for rejection, 's well what if there's two firms and they don't agree on stuff and then they just like, start shooting out. All right. I don't think that will happen. Because violence is expensive. So they have every incentive or much more of an incentive than States due to go to war.
You're more likely to go to war when taxpayers don't have the ability to opt out, but you know, who else goes to war governments, you know, who else saw quote solves things by using violence governments, the fallacy of unobtainable perfection is committed when the, when lack of perfection is urged as a basis for rejection. Even None of the Alternatives is perfect either. Now, Robert Murphy asked us to
sort of use a real world. Example of dictionaries saying there is no, there is currently, no government-imposed dictionary committee where they tell us what, all the words mean. So we kind of live in language and our key. Now think of how dangerous this is. I asked you for Something you say you'll give it to me and you give me something totally different. And then I say I'm going to murder you and by murder. I mean give you a sandwich and no one knows what we mean.
We this is not something we actually experience even though this is what we're told will happen. If we don't have a coercively funded Monopoly telling us all what laws to obey well the same thing applies with language. So look at all these different dictionaries. We have we Webster's. We have Oxford. We have Merriam-Webster. We have Cambridge WordPress. There's even the Urban Dictionary. So what is long mean? Define long! Explain? What something is long? What is a mouse? Do?
You mean like the mouse for our computer? Do you mean like there's a mouse in my house? And this is terrible. No one's going to know what we mean. Therefore a state needs to coercively? Tell us what words mean? What? Well, no, we're okay. Living in a world of anarchic definitions. Now, Robert Murphy asks us to consider the incentives behind the state providing law and private firms, providing law.
Well, there's a much wider range of customers that you have an incentive to provide for when you're a private firm. So, in other words, let's say you have a or this also applies to his Fence analysis, we're going to provide security and it's going to cost someone a hundred thousand dollars a year. Well, some people might buy that. However, you are narrowing yourself to a microscopic percentage of the populace. Private firms. Have a profit incentive to make their services available to The
Wider range of people. It's like, saying we can't have private cars because everyone's just going to make Lamborghinis. Well, we can't have a private water transportation. Station because the only companies are going to make yachts and give it to the rich. So the idea that we'll only the rich will have schools, if education's privatized will only the rich will have security if there's private policing, but
that, of course, is ridiculous. We could look at the cost of TV sets and the cost of computers as examples of these things are much more in the free market than they are controlled by the state. Whereas healthcare's more controlled. The state, according to the conscience of a liberal book by Paul Krugman about 44, percent of healthcare spending, is controlled by Medicare Medicaid. The veterans association and other state programs. Where is about? 36 is private insurance.
So we have the state heavily involved in things where prices constantly go up in a free market, you have competitors. You have an incentive to engage in trade research and Moment, you're trying to get a lot of consumers to buy a product. So you'll have a lower price. That's why the more free market. The more people are happy and you meet a wider range of consumer demand the state. You can't opt out of that's why they produce absolute shit. You also have a profit and loss
system. Now if people are able to not fund something that they don't find Value in, it is sad, but they will go out of business. Only about twelve percent of businesses that were In the Fortune 500 and 1955 were in The Fortune, 500 in the year 2016. So in other words, when people don't like something not funding, it is a much better mechanism of seeing whether or not they approve of those
product or service. Then saying every four years, you get to vote between two Crooks who you're totally ignoring about both of whom work for the trilateral commission or Skull and Bones. Well, it's important that you're able to opt out. So, It's also important to remember that in here are companies like Raytheon Pfizer Northrop, Grumman locky, Lockheed Martin. Did I say that? Dupont?
You have Boeing. You have all these places all these organizations that get a lot of their funding from the state. So State intervention makes forces us to fund things. We might Otherwise not voluntarily purchased therefore without the state. There'd be more competition. There would be more consumer Choice. Everything you could criticize
about well, but private firms. Might do bad thing X. Well, yeah that also applies to government what private firms might just go around murdering people. Yeah, look, research demo side. And look at all the genocides of the 20th century that governments, democracies, monarchies fascist, and communist have in. Engaged in and you'll see that it's much better for us to have a system that people can opt out of funding and voluntarily
choose to exchange with. Then it is to say, everyone has to be part of this group, but the Koch brothers are corrupt. Well, everything you can control. You can say is terrible about one organization. They in a state of society, will have the ability to influence
the state. So that Is why it's much better to have voluntarily funded competition than a coercively funded Monopoly. Robert Murphy then says, we might imagine now, before we start criticizing this, this is what someone who has studied the field. Imagines things might look like, he's giving a possible alternative. Of course, he doesn't know how seven people are going to interact when they stopped recognizing politicians, have extra rights, and Very people.
He's saying this is a possible alternative that is morally and economically Superior to statism. Now think of insurance companies, where if they will pay you if you are not defended or someone commits some sort of fraud, violence or act of aggression against you instead of a state, the insurance would pay out.
Therefore the insurance companies have an incentive to make sure you're protected and would cooperate with defense organizations to make sure there is protection in a certain, geographical area or wherever you go. Most people will spend their lives without violence being initiated. So the insurance companies are much more likely to make money in the long term than have to pay out there for. We could see insurance companies, replacing the state as a private moral.
Ellen Terry replacement. Now think of contracts that you make with insurance companies. My health care and my car insurance last one year with the state. It's four years of a contract. You can't opt out of and you get a one-in-a-million shot at affecting the outcome. Assuming the outcome is legitimate. God only knows how the votes are really counted at least with insurance companies. It's only one year.
And if you're not happy at the end of one year, you can opt out and say, hey, I'm going to Aetna or Humana or Cigna or United one or AIG or State Auto or any of the other things that you can go with. He says, now the objection might come. Well, how are all these places going to interact with each other? We need a state to monopolize because you can't have if a and b getting in a disagreement, they're just going to go to war and no one cooperates in a free market.
Market, well, we have a lot of examples of different competitors. Cooperating in a free market. Just think of, I don't know. Olive Garden, how many
organizations do that? They compete against a Red Robin and Red Lobster. Why she's Mongolian Grill, but in order to be a business, they have to cooperate with the people who build the building, the people who make the silverware, the people who make the napkins, the employees, the customers, the people who make the salad that Who grow the olives, the tomatoes, you have millions and millions of people, you voluntarily cooperate with because it's in your interest to
provide a final good to the customer. Therefore. This is not going to be totally different. If we extend legal systems to the private Market, people and organizations are going to cooperate with other firms. Just as Allstate, and Progressive and State Farm interact with each other.
To provide customers with verdicts voluntarily just as Citibank Bank of America, Wells, Fargo, PayPal, these places all cooperate with one another American Express in order to make sure that payments can go through smoothly. So there's a built-in incentive for private companies to cooperate with each other and this decreases the likelihood that violence will erupt. And Ours will be much more happier as a result. All property is privately owned. Dr. Murphy reminds us of another words.
So in a state of statism generally, you have areas that this is owned by the public to find the public. So is that me if I'm the public and I own it, I can do whatever the heck I want on it. There are many more disputes when something is quote publicly, which just means owned by the state. Then if things were I've ately owned when it's privately owned. There's much more of an incentive to make sure people are not initiating violence.
People are not stealing people are not engaging in any degenerate acts that might lower the value of the property or make the community look bad. So there's an incentive to make sure that things are going right now, when no one owns it. Well, there's much less of an incentive. Do you feel safer on government property than private property? I mean That is definitely something up for debate.
Either way claiming that a state-owned something does not necessarily increase the amount of safety you have in that area. Also, private firms are much less likely to go to war with one another or to cage people for victimless crimes. I mean Citibank or UnitedHealthcare. Kidnapping millions of people for gambling drugs. Prostitution. It just doesn't make economic
sense. Despite the moral factors that go into it. Consider just the cost of War to the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let alone, the Cold War World War to World War 1. The Spanish-American War, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. All these things to initiate violence against peaceful, people is very expensive and your employees are likely to die. You're more likely to develop a bad reputation.
So all these terrible things that are very costly, both financially and to your reputation, you have much more of an incentive to engage in peace then violence, but if we don't have a government, the mafia is going to take over. This is something that dr. Murphy responds to now. Consider. What is the mafia do the mafia? Let's take the 1920s in America. Really what they did they were
referred to as Bootleggers who? Would get together in speakeasies and people, like Al Capone would sell distribute transport alcohol, and they were very violent. Now. Why are those people not around today? Why is the Budweiser CEO not doing drive-bys to the Bud? Light CEO, who's planting bombs in the Smirnoff building? Well because there is no threat of a state trying to cage people for engaging in such activities when there is a Black Market. Silence.
Then you rubs where it would, otherwise be something of voluntary exchange. So, where does the mafia go in the free market? Is there a computer Mafia, a food Mafia, a stove, Mafia know it's gambling, drugs, prostitution. All these things. The state has made illegal people who are able to engage in riskier Behavior, do this and do these types of things. And when you have say the Drug cartel, the most evil violent people are attracted and it's so risky.
They're so worried about being caught by the cops and being caged for Life. The prices increase much more because there's so much more danger. When there's more danger. They get more violent at people they see as a threat to them, AKA competitors or rats, people who tell on them. So they engage in more violence. The reason they're such a mafia problem or a gang problem is
Those of the state. And also really there's amateurs, intermediates professionals and then the people who are really calling the shots. If a gangster is, someone who uses violence or intimidation to get what they want from peaceful people. I think politicians, the Rothschilds, and the Rockefellers of the world are much more of a problem than your average drug dealer, who, of course, wouldn't exist in a free
market. People would buy much safer, more effective things just like, they don't buy poisoned. Sign from Al Capone. Now, that alcohol is legal. They wouldn't buy, you know, these terrible, crystal meth crocodile things that each arm off. So the critic might say, so the state will basically be State Farm or Allstate. So you're not really making any difference. You're just exchanging one from
another. Yeah. Allstate our State Farm is basically idiom mean or Saddam or Genghis Khan or Hitler, or Ho Chi Minh or Mouse a tongue or Joseph? Yep, this is the same thing. Well, of course not, if you just want to go by history, death by Corporation versus death, by government death by free market versus death by statism. It's not even close. So if you're just a, utilitarian you need to look at this as an absolute improvement from statism.
Here is what one researcher says, what makes the state, a state? And how we know if were Aging with a government or not. He says the illegitimate see of the state. Rests on the fact that it exercises control over resources that it's agents. Never acquired through original appropriation or voluntary exchange and it does. So, without the consent of the rightful owners of said, resources.
That is the principal difference between here are the rules at Disneyland. Here are the rules in America. Yes, they're very different in size. But that is avoiding the root. That's not the actual reason that makes government legitimate. Rather this what makes the state unique and what makes dr. Murphy's position. Not a status position is the company's he says may replace the state in forms of security and law. They do not have any extra rights that other people don't have.
They just specialize in certain areas just as one might specialize in Science, History, language mathematics architecture. They have more Voluntary social Authority, more of a recognized valuable opinion, but they have no more rights. Whereas today, politicians have rights other people. Don't the right to draft people the right to wage war, the right to tax the right to regulate, the right to force your kids to go to school Etc.
So no, this is not saying we're replacing a government state with an insurance State. The same thing both times, you have power. No, that's a totally fundamental to Sunder misunderstanding of philosophy and reality. Now the ultimate check and balance the status might say well we had monarchy and that was bad. But today we have checks and balances.
So it's not just Congress. You also have the Supreme Court and it's not just Congress. For Supreme Court, you also have the president and he has the Congress who has the Supreme Court. And this is how we are checked and balanced into having a morally Justified system, to which the anarchist says, the only Justified check and balance. The ultimate check and balance is the individuals ability to opt out of participating in the
action with the entity. Another words when you have competition, Titian between organizations that is the ultimate check and balance to the amount of power. Can one group get a ton of power? Because a lot of customers really like the price in exchange for their product or service. Yes, that is possible. But what you ultimately need is people have to have the right and the ability to say no or to say I'm not interested or good luck. Goodbye. I'm not going to participate.
Other than that, you're really don't have any legitimate checks and balances a lot of this. Dr. Murphy says, is a misunderstanding of what the market is. So the leftist or the, the statist, in general, might say yeah, some people worship the state, some people worship the market, you both have people who are extremists. Well, this is not having a fundamental understanding of what the market is. The market says.
Dr. Murphy is just Shorthand for the totality of economic interactions between freely acting individuals. Another words, what makes the state unique? It has the socially recognized right to initiate violence. What makes the market the market. Well, it relies on the voluntary exchange and respect for property rights. Dr. Murphy goes in to. Well. What about consumer protection? We have laws to protect consumers, don't we need
consumer protection? Well, another word for Consumer Protection. Is stamp of approval going back to the ultimate check and balance. As much as the FDA might make us safe. I have to have the ability to not fund it because if I don't have the ability to not fund it, I mean, come on. That's just, that's not really a check at all. That's just one group of people violently dominating, another the FAA. Well, what happens to the FDA or the FAA if they produce a poor product or service?
So what happens is their budgets? Increase? The state says, look at this terrible tragedy. This is due to a lack of funding. Look at the Center for Disease Control. They were just starved of funds. Therefore. We need more funding. That's why they did a bad job. Where's in the voluntary sector? You're more likely to go out of business, more in-depth. Analysis is done a book called Death by regulation by dr.
Mary J ruark where she makes the case that the FDA has No incentive to bring productive drugs to the market that save people's lives. So by postponing the arrival of those drugs, they've killed Millions lie. Yes, literally millions of individuals. If a wants to volunteer voluntarily trade with b and c, coercively, interferes see is responsible for the death. Robert Murphy says, in the absence of a state, you might have something like, CBS 5 consumer. Watch something we have in Arizona.
You might have Consumer Reports saying, hey, this product gets our stamp of approval. We say this is a good product, or this is a bad product. Now, is it possible for Consumer? Watch or customer reporting or UL Underwriters Laboratory? Is it possible that Mistaken and they do something bad. Yes, you know, who else?
That applies to the FDA, and the EPA and the occupational, safety and health administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. So, again, everything you say can apply to voluntarily funded competition. Also applies to the state actually applies to the state tenfold. Now, dr. Murphy says, trust the state. Certainly we cannot trust the state to protect us once. It's disarmed us.
So some might say, but what if there's a private company and they just like don't care and don't protect me. Then what's my remedy? Well your remedy in a free society would be to go to a competitor and stop funding them under a state. Well, there's been many cases about this when a bagel county has also had a case, but the most famous One warned versus District of Columbia.
A District of Columbia Court of Appeals, case that held that the police do not, We specific duty to provide Police Services to Citizens based on the public duty doctrine. That's going back to the year 1981. But hey, just worried about Putin interfering in elections Stormy, Daniels, and Venezuela and Iran. Those are the real threats. Now, police claim the right to rule us, which is in total violation of the social
contract. Only reason we have to pay them is because they protect us and exchange. So if they don't protect us, we don't have the obligation to pay them, correct? Well, no the social contracts a lie to get people to be obedient.
So the idea that both private companies are just going to engage in mass murderer or not care about people that also applies to the state and there's actually a built-in incentive for people to not kill their own voluntarily paying customers to where you can go to a competitor. Also, a big check and balance is no one's going to assume. This insurance company has extra rights, whereas politicians. Oh, when they cage people for victimless crimes.
That's just legislation and you can't blame the cops. They're just following orders, Etc. When look 77% of people in prisons. Now, granted this numbers Up For Debate, but a large portion of people in cages are there for victimless crimes or think of, I don't know, the, My Lai Massacre or spring agent, orange, or the bombing of civilians in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Lemon, or the first world war or the second world war, or the Gulf War or Wounded Knee? All of these things engaged in.
Countless innocent people murdered and we're supposed to be so terrified of a world without the group responsible for this government, please, it's ridiculous. Now, dr. Murphy then gets into private defense. Now, of course, we've already gone over the morality of being forced to fund in order. Ization, you don't think is really defending you or don't
think is moral. And he says, it's important to use an apples-to-apples comparison when saying something like, oh, and Anarchist Society couldn't defend against Adolf Hitler or the Soviet Union or imperialist Japan in which he says. Yeah. It's true a small Anarchist society, would have trouble fighting off Nazis, but a statist society would have a more difficult time. Consider this idea. One, geographical area has one organization called US.
Government organization will call it a standing army. Now, if you are able to get that one organization to, if you apply enough pressure, if you kill enough of their tribe, that organization is the only organization you need to surrender. And then you're done, you talk to the generals or the president or the Secretary General whoever's in charge. And if they order their men to stand down, well, then your geographical area has been taken
over now. Consider the area on the right, where you have a militia necessary to the security of a free state. As a second amendment says, where you have a geographical area, where no one recognizes your right to rule. Imagine yourself walking out. Outside with a crown on from Burger King saying that I hereby
rule you. Now, here's what you have to do people would start laughing and then if you started really pulling out a gun or a knife or imposing yourself, people would just recognize the right to resist you. I mean unquestionably, whereas in the first case you have I just got to focus on this one group. I get this one group and I rule the territory on the right. You have to sort of h-bomb. The entire place from east to west and then hope the survivors, recognize you as
legitimate. So, it's not clear that a state of society is much less likely to get invaded or taken over. Then a statist society. Another words. It's about finding a balance when dealing with private defense or private law. How much of your money should you spend on food? Should you starve to death or spend 100% of your money on food? Okay. Well, obviously those are extremes, you need to find an equilibrium.
Should you spend all your money on church and building the beauty of the cathedral's or should you spend no money and should there be no that Cathedrals? Well, we want to, we want to find a balance. Between, you know, something, ridiculously large and non-existent. So the best way to find that balance is to allow people to voluntarily fund things and be able to opt out, allow for free entry by competitors, allow for investment, allow for voluntary Research into these agencies.
The same thing applies churches, food architecture pausing legal systems defense, so, You have things like a state where there's no incentive to find a genuine equilibrium. You can just charge whatever and they'll really pay it. That's why it costs the state trillions of dollars to make us less safe by creating enemies all around the world. This is a famous LA Times. Headline $37 screws seven thousand six hundred and twenty two dollar coffee maker, $640.
Toilet seats. Suppliers to our military just won't be over. So, Sold by Jack Smith. July 30th, 1986. Oh, President Reagan up. Never mind doesn't count because conservative Reagan was in office. That means government shrunk. So if we look at the title Chaos Theory, this is a term that is a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos states of dynamical systems, who apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are often governed.
Deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. I believe, this is the fundamental understanding of the book here. So even though you don't have a coercive Central planner, you have a bunch of people. If you really look at the example of Science History, language money, mathematics exchange ideas history, although you don't have one entity calling the shots for everything there is Is a sort of odor that still exists if you take the pencil case from earlier, dr.
Murphy summarizes the main theme of his book and he says competition and accountability would force true. Experts to handle the important decisions that must be made in legal systems. It is a status myth that Justice must be produced by a monopoly institution of organized violence. Thank you for watching Keith, and I don't tread on anyone.