A few years back, Adam Kokesh and I had an exchange of ideas on my old show, The Drunken Peasants. It was a really fun debate, and since he's such a big star here on Steemit these days, I figured his fans might enjoy it as well. I don't think the debate is likely to change minds on either side, but I think it's solid entertainment.
It's always nice to see these topics debated, since mainstream political discourse is very limiting. You don't see a lot of anarchy debates on the mainstream news.
I do admit that I probably interrupted Adam a bit too much, but I'm an asshole, so what do you expect?
Enjoy!
P.S. I will send half of the profits from this video to Adam, since he was kind enough to participate in this debate, and I don't want people thinking that rating this video positively is akin to taking my side.
I like hearing different points of views because i believe that there are good intentions behind most world views... But this here sounds like a proposal for regression into tribalism. While it might benefit a few people, i think its a naive and harmful idea for society as a whole. Of course i dont agree with a lot of what the government is doing, but i don't think the solution is 'no government'. There will always be a hierarchy structure in society. Once you have a group of people, access to resources and the need of allocate these resources, there will be conflicts - and to solve them you will need to make some form of government. Every organization is a small government.
The more entropy we have in society the more the need for order will give raise to some form of government. Its biology, physics and psychology - they all point to simple systems merging to create more complex systems... its just how entropy works - and it works on everything.
Its a broad and simplified answer to a complex topic, but i think that people who understand the principles of complexity, will see the obvious negatives of Kokesh's views.
ankapolo
"Every organization is a small government." Nope.
"..and to solve them you will need to make some form of government" Nope
you've been indoctrinated into a religious-cult. get well soon
Government is tribalism. I'm saying let's get away from tribalism.
thanks for weighing in @adamkosh, I thought the interview was definitely interesting... i agree that there is tribalism in government... but if people fall into smaller groups of governance wouldn't there be even more tribal behavior? Especially if cultural identity or like-mindedness plays a role in forming a smaller government?
Btw, i do understand the desire to be free and not be bound by laws we disagree with; perhaps it is one of the reasons why i got into sailing and plan to live on a boat - being free to move, independent and self sufficient... but it comes at a price of giving up on a lot of securities, comforts and certainties that are provided under a governed, land-locked society.
If you give up liberty for security, you deserve nether.
LOL, any security, comfort or certainty you believe the government is providing is only temporary. Just look at social security for an example, they keep raising the age to retire because they are running out of money.
yeah, i totally agree with that... the taxation system as it is now sucks! and the government too... (the gov, takes your taxes butr doesn't represent you). i'm not saying that i agree with the current system, what i'm saying is that doing away with it completely is not likely... and even if you did for a while, it would return eventually because of the nature of our behavior as a society.... but i'm down with idealistic idea... i see t he appeal.
Well, what is the right size for a big government that is centralized? If bigger is better? Why limit it to just a country like America? Why not go full on globalism then? The thing is, globalism is certainly not in everyone's best interest. We already see the problems in our own nations today. Not all people are the same and the more different smaller groups are forced together with a bigger pyramid at the top, the more heirarchy at the top the higher you get loses touch with the locals. But locals are more in touch with each other, are closer to each other, and have similar goals and wishes and empathize with each other more. Something to think about.
i think regardless of the system, big or small, we have to look at what human nature is really capable of in terms of self governance. Some ideas are great, but we may not be the right species for them. Some people are very opportunistic and some are very humanist and altruistic, some have a lot of resources and some don't. If we could all achieve a level of care for others while benefiting ourselves in all situations, then it wouldn't matter what government we have - big or small.... but as it stands today, most people need some form of governance because we are prone to conflict... which would be fine if we didn't live in the age of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to annihilate each other in a blink of an eye...
I'm not saying that the current government is good, far from it, in fact i'd be interested to have an experiment in our society to see if small remote communities can do a better job and get along.... But my understanding of how complexity works, especially if you also factor in technological advancement and uneven distribution of resources, simply doesn't logically allow to for anything other than a complex governing system... anything less, will be too chaotic for our well-being. But i will stand corrected if the opposite can be demonstrated.
Well, here's some reading, if you haven't already:
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West, by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill Reviewed by Edward Stringham
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Although it is not with modern advancements.
thank you, i will give it a read. which do you recommend most?
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West, by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill
@ankapolo
It may be of benefit to clarify that voluntary organisations are by definition not a small government going by the Weberian political science definition of the state which is 'a monopoly on the initiation of force within a given geographic region' meaning that not every organisation is a small government, free market enterprises for example if non coercive aren't governments by definition.
'There will always be a hierarchy structure in society. '
As far as i am aware anarcho capitalism/voluntarism is not advocating for lack of hierarchy, simply hierarchies based on competence (the best in a field at the top of a company for example) and not domination or violence.
'Once you have a group of people, access to resources and the need of allocate these resources, there will be conflicts'
Why do resources need to be allocated?
The idea is that the free market is better able to meet everybody's needs through private property rights and voluntary contracts than forcible allocation. (Ludvig Von Mises is good for this)
'The more entropy we have in society the more the need for order will give raise to some form of government. Its biology, physics and psychology - they all point to simple systems merging to create more complex systems... its just how entropy works - and it works on everything.'
Some would argue that the state being a monopoly of force puts it in the category of chaos whereas anarcho capitalism would be voluntary or spontaneous self order/organisation.
Some would define the initiation of force as violence which is chaos, order could be defined as living in accordance with natural law, which would be voluntarism.
You could define the libertarian left's rejection of hierarchy to be chaos however.
have you ever not cared about how competent or successful someone was; you just hated their guts because you know they are a horrible human being? if the answer is yes, then you can see how merit based system will yield to social conflicts and how anarco-capitalism will eventually become regular runaway capitalism in the hands of popular and charismatic people as oppose to competent volunteers. Human emotion is far more powerful than any logical system - by pointing to our flawed human nature I can recognize why we do need a higher system of governance. We simply cant contain our righteousness and emotional urges... I'd like to think that everyone can offer something useful to the table and be compensated on the merit of their output alone, but even with STEEM, the game is social interaction and status more than content quality - how do you even measure the quality of content without being able to compare it with all the rest of the content? you are far more likely to upvote someone you care about and have some emotional connection with, than simply good content of a stranger. Am i wrong?
But even if I entertain the possibility of a society where quality of output is the only factor of human worth, then you are up to some crazy anxiety ridden society - trying to outperform each other in every aspect, it might seem voluntary - but its not, its just pressure from a different direction.
'Human emotion is far more powerful than any logical system - by pointing to our flawed human nature I can recognize why we do need a higher system of governance. '
Does it have to be a system based on coercive taxation? What if the same infrastructure and services could be provided by a voluntary fee? If people need these services wouldn't they pay for them?
As an aside what you wrote there i would argue is an argument against government, if we're crazy and anxiety ridden wouldn't a centralised coercive monopoly with the ability to kill at will be a dangerous attractant for the craziest and most sociopathic elements in society?
I generally think that taxation is a good thing if we can have a voice about where taxes go. I think my biggest objection to the current taxation system is that it is spent inefficiently, and has too many favorable loopholes for huge corporations (that don't hold the interest of the public as far as well-being goes). But over all, i think that if you have a government, that is functioning as democratically as possible, then it has to be funded by taxation - because ideally paying taxes should also give you a voice in the government. That in my view is the most balanced scenario.
Some points I'd like to adres.
This is not the case
Government is the only organization that is seen as having THE RIGHT TO RULE (by it's subjects), they dictate, you must obey. Other organizations don't have that element (of slavery). A boss can not lock you up for disobeying him or her. Firing that he/she can do and you can quit. But a boss or teacher is not seen as having the right to rule. (if he/she would do that he/she would be seen as a criminal.
Hierachy is a bit the same.
The government are rulers, but with a footbalteam or a supermarketstucture or a student and his teacher there is no ruler and slave. They voluntarily agree to some arrangement/contract, not under thread of or use of violence.
I never see compromisis in politics, the subject must obey the rulers, or they get punished or killed if they still do not obey. It's forcing an opinion on the other person/group through the barrel of a gun.
Hi, thanks for offering your view, but i think that you might be mistaken about "the right to rule".
Organizations don't have the right to enslave you because of labor laws created by the government to restrict the power a company might have over its laborers. If let alone, without oversight, an organization will behave in a similar manner as you described - it will enslave its subjects.
Also similar to a company, you can quit your government. You can leave to another country, or live in some wilderness or a community where everyone thinks alike - but then slowly but surely, if the community thrives, it will start forming a governing hierarchy - the more resources, the more people - the more complexity - the more need for laws, order and a system of control.
You last point is to me the most confusing, because you are describing a dictatorship, but i know you are referring to a democratic government. I see plenty of compromise in politics (i just wish it didnt favor corporations as much as it does). There is punishment and unfortunately executions but for actual crimes; not for holding ideas. And i think that certain crimes like the use of pot should be decriminalized (which seems to be the direction where we are headed), so there is plenty of compromise.
Organizations don't have the right to enslave you because slavery is bad. If the laws of government, would change allowing corporal punishment and putting you in a cage or whatever, would you say that they than have the right to enslave you? (you don't have rights btw you have privileges )
You can walk out any time out of a company, if the government has made laws, or not, does not matter you don't need permission.
You can not quit your government in the way you can quit your job.
It is a dictator ship better word master/slave “relationship”. Why would you need permission from people to smoke pot? You're boss in you own body. Not the government, not your neigbours, and not your neighbours that ask government, are boss.
If someone else can tell you what you can, and can not do with your body, your land, your house etc, and can punish you if you disobey then that would mean/means, that they own everything, and you own nothing, not even yourself, they are your master, you are their slave. That you can do some religious ritual and to pick a master that let's you smoke pot, or let's you keep more of what you worked for, or some other thing, doesn't change the fact that he/she is your master. (dictatorship, mob rule, democracy) all the same mechanism. If you move to another country you just move to another slave plantation.
A situation;
If your neighbour would run into your house and put you in a cage for smoking pot he would be seen as a madman and a criminal. Even if he and his friends agreed and where "the majority".
Somehow most people are so indoctrinated that they believe that if you do a lot of religious stuff and serious looking ceremonies. That that same situation becomes ok.
Thank you for the reply :)
edit There is a difference between a community making rules or having a leader that you follow voluntary or rulers and subjects
good post
.jpeg)
Film my favorite😍
Nice lil post here
Hey Tj I'm sure its a good video as always. Thanks for telling your subscribers about this Steemit/Dtube stuff. I would have never made content on YouTube but I'm going to give it a go (and probably fail) here. Stay edgy my fellow neckbeard.
Now I've followed you and will judge your every post. You are a member of asshole-empire, so I expect poorly made, but compelling content, as it thus far typical of the others who post in the tag.
Could you guys do this again? :)
nice imges
Always entertaining to listen to this kind of debate. Appreciate your passion the both of you. When you are this passionate about something you do make your mark.
On the the point made about constructing better systems rather than simply tearing down what we currently have, we have started a project here recently that aims to explore this very thing in a virtual fashion. This might interest you and @adamkokesh both.
It's called #nth-society and is an open source, forkable, "unmanaged" collaboration. We would love to have you and everyone else that might read this explore, critique or contribute ideas so as to in any sense participate in the experiment that we are trying to create together!
very interesting
Thanks!
Do check out the initial project post where we explain the fundamental concepts in detail if you like and you are very welcome to join the fun in our Slack server (current invite).
There or on the post you can also ask any questions you might have. =)
OMG, John Galt again
good one :)
capitalism always wins ... we can all agree on that
I consider myself a fairly liberal-minded person, but I could never fully embrace socialism or communism because I love making money (not only for myself, but for those around me) and I love business.
and the gov makes money through taxation, which is not an earned income ... I prefer to have a choice when paying for something, so that there's a transaction of values and not an act of theft masked under "it's for government administration purposes" ... then they just create more and more administration costs to excuse collecting even more money from us ... I like to know what I'm paying for ... thank you
It is very politics also good video love this
in hot and in top ... lucky guy :p
nice mate
That was a good debate. I tend to lean on the side of Anarchy myself, but TJ, you did have some valid concerns about how people will behave if they are not, in some ways, coerced into behaving according to a given standard.
But there is also the idea that a lot of problematic behavior, greed at the cost of others, violence etc. are systemic in nature i.e. the system propagates conditions that again force certain behaviors and violence in groups of people who have a lack (from a socio-economic perspective),and are not able to use the lawful means of the system to help them with their disadvantage. Would one steal a loaf of bread, if all bread was public property to begin with? Does anyone steal water from public fountains? The 'necessity'of stealing something happens when one doesn't have, and not having is a problem of public/private property, which in turn is regulated by a governing authority that has decided who can have and who cant. In modern capitalist society, the governing authority has decided that someone who has more than he needs, has a right to acquire more, while someone who began with very little or nothing, does not find it easy to lawfully acquire.
Capitalism and democracy now are symbiotic entities. How would you win an election if you dont have funding, and who has more power to fund than capitalists? It's the military-industrial complex that handles the ruse of democracy.
Like Marx said, "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Capitalism and democracy are NOT symbiotic. Democracy parasitizes the market, and does not benefit the market administratively or otherwise. Also, if an election is bought, it is neither capitalism nor democracy. Capitalism uses purchasing power on voluntary transactions (ie not elections), and democracy entails an opportunity for people to have an equal say (ie a vote not a dollar).
Thanks for replying :)
A democratic leader may benefit certain favored market players. So isn't democracy in a capitalist system sidestepping it's ideal and acting as a capital regulating force for said players, and hence the market? Aren't market policies often tailored to suit the elite capitalists?
If an election is bought, it is an oligarchy, a synthesis of the two (if you were to draw a Venn diagram). What I mean to say is that ideally, capitalism and democracy should not be crossing paths the way they do now. My statement was not what they are in an ideal world, but what they are in the real world. People in a democracy do have an equal vote, but we can't put aside variables that influence votes, such as campaigning.
Just my thoughts. I'd love to learn anything more on this!
Oh okay I see it's an "is vs. ought" sort of thing. I agree that both are corrupted by the trappings of one another, although I think government force is the real underlying problem--not capital inequality. Furthermore, I'm not sure symbiosis is the right team to describe a relationship that degrades both participants (capitalism + democracy)... Maybe toxic relationship? That sounds juvenile but hey.
If not seen from the viewpoint of those small elite groups benefiting from the arrangement (the shareholders of multi-billion dollar corporations, the bankers, the 'democratic' leaders), but instead from the general public's point of view, then you are absolutely right. It's a very toxic relationship.
It's that point in time now when a brother needs to step in between, push them apart and tell them to 'Get the f**k away from each other. You guys are SHIT together. Jesus!' :D
I think Democracy is shit on it's own, as well, though.
Great conversation!
I guess it would be boring without any opposition. Its like saying, "No war, no peace!"
Our lives won't be strong if no obstacles are coming on our lives. Battery for instance has a positive and negative terminals that makes up a voltage. Contradictions, debates, lefts and rights, good or bad. All of these stuffs makes our world perfect. For God believers, why satan existed in the first place? Why God just created all good. At this very moment, God can change the world right away, in an instant right now, because He's God. But HE doesn't do that? Why? Our being human could not comprehend everything, our will is not His will.
About centralize and decentralize, the word itself decentralize came from the the root word centralize, which means no decentralize without centralize. It would be a chaos in real life distributing all the money/resources equally to each and every individual and it would be impossible to happen in my opinion.
About enforcing laws and discipline, its necessary especially for those who use freedom abusively. Too much is too much. Even too good is not good.
. With freedom comes responsibility. I would suggest that a free people would behave a lot better than you give therm credit. Government may or may not be needed. However we should all be free to decide if we need it or not. But what we could all agree on, is that we do not need a one big central gov't. That is our biggest enemy at this point. We already have 50 states that are aready organized and no one would have to do anything new but just enjoy our new freedoms. Now if you want to expand on that freedom, guess what? You would be free to do so, or not.
Taxation is theft.
very good job my friend .. you guys are great.
I like to see your post & thanks a lot to share this type of content with us.
Thanks for posting this here! Great to see you on Steemit. Saw a few requests to do this again. Maybe this time, I can host! I'll be reaching out to you by text message. Peace and love to you, brother!
TJkirk "are you sure it's such a good idea to get rid of government?"
Government's have murdered +200million of teir own people in the last 100 years alone... um yes.. i'm sure lol
An interesting chat, I tended to agree slightly more with what you said than with Adam. It's always good to listen to a nice respectful debate
nice
select me mrs
Love Adam! It's good to see this community running with his banner!
Good work,keep it up,i like your posts.
i liked the debate between you and Adam Kokesh...
ha ha ha .. it was pretty entertaining ...
Your post is really interesting. Great video.
good video good post
I think you are very wise and very social in society, maintain your social soul, because very rarely there are people like you, and what I like about you is, you do not maintain Egoism, thumbs up for you @tjkirk
I am not good with politics but I know capitalism wins any day anytime. About the Mel Gibson stuff, yeah people tend to change and have a different taught about you when they hear your past. It is normal
You are a really fair person and as long as you will give the text of the profits of this video to Adam, you are a very positive person and very fair and worthy of voting you have a share in this Thank you for this post
Disruptive Technology is here; Fuck Politics and Capitalism with all it's cousins. I love you guys battling out BTW, i watched just a fragment of the video TBH
That was great!!!
Nich post
this is entertainment at its best 😁
this is entertainment at its best
Dtube rematch!?!?
Interesting video. I would love to watch more of these.
Oh, I liked this one.
RIP in peace original DPP.
I cannot say I agree with one side over another, and I have strong objections to dichotomising Statism vs Anarchism.
Although that depends on definitions one uses.
I would say, based on the characterisations I've seen from people over the years, I'm definitelly neither a statist nor anarchist.
I hope to see some more up to date debate involving you, TJ.
Anarchy does not mean you have to be an anarchist. It just means you can't tell me what I can and cannot do.
I was saying that I reject dichotomy of anarchism and statism. You're not either one or another.
As for whether you need to be an anarchist in anarchy...
If you're not an anarchist in anarchy, sooner or later you will not have anarchy.
Because non-anarchist will naturally form systems of hierarchy.
That was a great older video, hopefully you can have Adam on again sometime.
whatever we approach is what we will meet
then let not you approach what we can not approach because that will be a disaster for us
Nice post @tjkirk
TJ is correct on infrastructure. Our roads are crumbling not because the government does a shitty job at building them, but because the last time we had a great enhancement in infrastructure wasn't since the New Deal in 1935!
And why is that? The government has no incentive to fix your road. They will wait until it is so bad the people will start to revolt and only when it threaten their ability to tax you will they finally do something about it.
Congratulations, your post received one of the top 10 most powerful upvotes in the last 12 hours. You received an upvote from @thejohalfiles valued at 287.91 SBD, based on the pending payout at the time the data was extracted.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, reply with the word "stop".
Love seeing TJ on here, making money off his hard work
I saw this several years ago. I remember Adam's assertion that suits like the property damage claim for pollution victims discussed here could be handled privately without the intervention of courts through ostracism and private dispute resolution sounded ridiculous.
Fast forward to today. I've spent some time as a cog in the justice. Turns out, most suits are resolved privately either through mediators or arbitrators that the courts appoint. So while he is right that it can be done, its the government itself that arranges these. There's something there, I just don't know what exactly.
Also, ostracism comes from a Greek word for "stone," I believe, because periodically the Athenians would hold a vote to see if anyone in the city deserved to get kicked out for being obnoxious, and they used stones as ballots. I highly doubt an anarchist would approve of formal ostracism if it existed still in the way it was originally conceived. Oh, and one of those eventually voted out was Pericles. So, yeah, look how well that worked...
Just because the courts appoint arbitrators doesn't mean that they wouldn't be properly and voluntary appointed by all parties in the dispute, in the absence of government.
And that's how disputes will be settled in the future, once the justice system is seen as the obsolete piece of stone-aged trash it is.
Do you think all disputes can be resolved this way? I think the gulf between anarchists and libertarian-esque ideologies rests with whether disputes can be resolved without the weight of force suspended over the negotiations and what could happen when you lift the lid off completely. The reason mandated arbitration/mediation works so well, I think, is that no one wants to deal with litigation because it brings down that heavy hand.
I think all disputes could be solved that way, but most likely won't be. Some things will still be solved with guns, although in a society with individual responsibility for security and an absence of crime schools (prisons), as well as an unhindered and free market, the idea is that no one would become so desperate as to put others into a situation which would require guns to resolve.
The belief in the legitimacy of government authority is a superstitious-religion.
Live and let live is extraordinarily hard for people... thus government.
If having a centralized government is so great why do they have to force it on you? Most people know what is right and wrong by the time they are 8 or 10 years old. Between then and the time you get out of school you learn about what you can get away with. At least that how it was for me.
Adam is running for president now, so I guess the debate is moot...
Is he on fucking coke? He speaks so quickly and he looks very disheveled. As well as that, he's always making different facial expressions, most of which don't make sense for the situation.
I hate politics personally. Don't get offended please.
Then how did you come to find yourself on this page? lol
I think what you mean is that you hate the current state, premise, or mode of national/international level politics, not politics itself.
If you have ever been in a group of friends, where some of them were split about where to go eat, and you, along with a few others suggest, recommend, and successfully convince the rest to go to a particular eatery, then you have indulged in and exercised politics.