This is a perfect illustration showing that; as soon as you need somebody else to solve your problems, you create a ruler. The moment Ben decided to give Adam the apple because of Charlie's "ruling" (and Adam accepting) they created a ruler/government. Truth is, there was never a problem. There was only ever a greedy little trickster named Adam that swindled everyone into believing that because he saw or touch the natural resource first that it somehow belonged to him.
7:09 <—-fallacy. A very small few of the most popular (not necessarily best) arbitrators will emerge
whatever ben and adam could've shared the freaking apple lets be honest it would be smarter on every level. but humans are so stupid and greedy they need charlie to come in acting like he knows shit. Doesn't fix a damn thing
So many fallacies I can't start.
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS ITS, IM SO FUCKING TIRED OF LIBERALS AND THIER STEAL ALL MY MONEY AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR FOR CIGARETTES, FREE HOUSING AND TRADING FOOD STAMPS FOR SEXUAL FAVORS!!! FUCK YOU GET A JOB !!!!!GET A FUCKING JOB!!!!!! AND FUCK YOU NO REALY FUCK YOU PEOPLE WHO THINK THEIR SHOULD BE MORE AND LARGER GOVERNMENT FUCK YOU PEOPLE WITH THE HARDEST GOD DAMN OBJECT KNOWN IN THE UNIVERSE IN THE MOST PAINFULLY DAMAGING WAY!!! !!!LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY FOREVER!!!!! !!!!!!FUCK YOU GOVERNMENT!!!!!
Complete fantasy world. The two parties will never be able to agree upon a judge. They aren't interested in the most fair, impartial, etc trial. They are interested in a judge that will serve their own agenda the most, which will always be a conflict.
Lame . This system is garbage . In order to WIN , you simply get a friend to arbitrate every time . That's not law , that's a coin toss. Also your all assuming people have to " arbitrate " who compensates the arbitrator ? If your a buff ass guy , fuuck arbitration . I can whoop sweet sweet ass .
Apples don't grow on desert islands. If you turn to a judge you're turning to government. What if Charlie is Adam's gay lover? Then Ben is going to get the shaft (figuratively, either Adam or Charlie gets it literally) every time.
The apple example shows how things WON'T work, because Ben isn't going to go for the "additional payment" and probably won't accept that he couldn't take some apples Adam picked, since, he feels anyway, it was his tree. We don't know if that claim is true – they don't give us enough information. Sounds like Adam is a troublemaker.
Arbitration only works if all parties are reasonable and will follow through with their promise to accept the outcome. I've been through arbitration twice and both times the other party agreed to comply with the arbitrated settlement but didn"t, so I had to take them BACK to court and whip their behinds good. So I did.
My main issues:
1. Assumptions concerning private property.
Granted this is one way of addressing conflicts over scarce resources, especially in more complex settled societies, but by far not the only means, nor is there anything inherent in property rights that they are somehow written in the aether. They are simply a social construct meant to fulfil a specific purpose.
So, consider before Adam and Bob got to the island. Who owns specific bits of the island and its resources? No-one. Who decides the "right" to who owns what? How can Adam argue the tree is his, if he hasn't planted it? He could argue the apples are his, because he has picked them (transformed them by his labour). Bob could, albeit verging on fallacy, suggest that he had "transformed the apples by his labour" in having removed them from Adam's basket at risk to himself, and that if anything, the apples might as well belong to the tree and Adam has "stolen" them. Either way, neither man can claim he owned the tree in a non-subjective way.
There are several possible solutions to this without resorting to violence:
a. Adam and Bob agree to divide the trees on the island equitably between themselves. (This at least is a form of property right that is legitimate in the sense all parties agreed to it. But then, suppose Adam leaves the island for an indefinite period without telling Bob. Bob now has effective run of the island, and no means of knowing that Adam is not dead. When Adam returns, and demands that Bob should not have been harvesting from "his" trees in violation of their previous agreement, who is right? After all, Bob may argue, Adam had no need for the trees when he was off the island.)
b. Agree that all trees in principle belong to both men, but each is entitled to whatever they can harvest. (Using labour as a means of justifying property, but with shared ownership of natural resources, i.e. mutualism of sorts. This can, however, lead to inequality of outcomes as one might be a better picker of apples (say) than the other.)
c. Adam and Bob agree to share both the trees and the job of harvesting, as well as any apples harvested. (Equality of both opportunity and outcome. This is what communism actually means in practice.)
d. Adam and Bob fight; Bob wins, getting control of the tree- nay, all the trees, and demanding that if Adam wants to eat any apples, he must help the winner harvest them and be paid whatever Bob thinks is fair. (As history would seem to attest, this is often the reality of actually-existing capitalism, no state required. But ah, you may say, this is in fact feudalism! Well, tell us how actually-existing property came to be? How property rights are really maintained?)
2. Why does the arbitrator need to be a specific person or entity?
Or in other words, why not delegate the business of arbitration to the collective? Perhaps because two parties do not trust the collective? However, it makes things much closer to "objectively right" and presumably that, all other things being equal between individuals, it is harder to corrupt many people than it is to corrupt one behind the other's back.
3. *Reliance on trust, and "voluntary" acceptance of outcomes*.
The system relies very heavily upon all parties concerned being legitimately able to trust a third party to settle disputes, but there is no real guarantee that the arbitrator is going to be trustworthy other than that assumption. If one party can covertly bribe the other without the other's loss of trust, the latter is at a disadvantage. If one party likewise can coerce or bribe the other to accept a particular arbiter, then where does that leave the "voluntary" accpetance of outcomes? What if one party refuses to accept the result? The whole system falls apart like a proverbial house of cards.
Government is a monopoly on force, plain and simple, that masquerades as a voluntary, peaceful organization.
This is a nice concept but it has one weak link, the most important aspect. Humans making decisions. Let us look at human society today and see how rancid it is, corrupted from the very core. Even the "free-est" of them all, the citizens are egoist, xenophobe people. Even if they act kindly and pretend to be, they will behave as opposed as possible, trying to profit as much as possible for themselves.This greed is in the core of their beings of the majority of people today. And greedy corrupt individuals have more greedy corrupt friends, socializing, creating a group of interest.For example: You have companies that create and sell products. They have grown based on reputation and if at first they tried to be better, economics rules took that away and it all became numbers. Need for profit, need for revenue, less need for improvement.At one point they do not create a good product, so out of 1 million products, one is defective, yours.If you go and say they sold you a defective product, they might reply you broke it, your fault. You are one small person, they are big reputable company that everyone else loves It is you against them.In your theoretical situation, there is a conflict between 2 people and they go to this law selling company, that is reputable and has been fair for 1 million clients, but for you, somehow it made a mistake.You are not satisfied by the decision, because you consider it unfair.What do you do? You go to another law company to appeal this decision or do you go there to rejudge it?!Can you settle a matter with just one "law provider"Or would you need a large number of law decision companies and have a voting contest?What if you are a powerful individual and the other side is a nobody?!Will you settle the decision through influence? promise of good life for the positive votes, or will you simply play the victim yourself (even if you are the aggressor) with nice words and behavior, acting all the way?…Or will it be a free for all televised/online voting, where everyone can press a buton (just like in coliseum of rome, upvote or downvote, and see which is which.Someone eating gum, spit it on the sidewalk. He is seen and reported to a police authority which will incarcerate it.A trial comes where the accused tries to implore forgiveness, but doesn't know how to act, to behave with a mask. He is a direct rude man, but fair.He has aggressive language but objective.The gum he was eating had bad taste, maybe out of expiration date. As he no longer has the package, he cannot prove that, just his claims. He is thus sentenced for a crime that the majority of people act impulsively based on his rude behavior (which is not a crime) giving him a downvote, and the company making the gum is not even mentioned and escapes, or the opposite, they use smart lawyers that will handle their PR.…I have tried explaining as short as possible potential outcomes of this free law theory, where like today, everything is wrong because humans are judges, jury, witnesses. Humans in their majority are inherently incapable of fair, objective assessment of a situation, of being culpable and taking responsability for an action, acting mature. They will try to place the blame on others and escape punishment. Imagine such a person deciding if you are guilty or not of something.Oh wait, this is how elections work today, everyone has the power to alter the future and if a person knows how to play it right, they will get elected into a position of power. Even if they are greedy thieves, corrupt to their core.
This guy isn't speaking of any kind of logic, and the information he's provided in this video is almost as bad as Markiplier's rambling in his "YouTube Has Changed" video.
1. Government is NOT a "monopoly of law". Government is a group of narcissists who honestly believe they have the magical right to control other people.2. The apple tree issue is the most juvenile example of a disagreement, because of how small and simplified of an issue it is to fight over apples to begin with, and because there's nothing wrong with sharing the apples. Come up with a more complex issue (such as child custody for example), and I might take you slightly more seriously.3. You don't need to drag someone else into the issue to determine a resolution, especially when they had nothing to do with it in the first place. They'd just tell you it's not their problem, and its between the two people who are disagreeing. If two people can't (for whatever reason) come up with a reasonable solution on their own, they're either children who are just bickering or two adults who aren't very smart.4. The person acting as the "arbitrator" didn't create a "law", they just simply suggested what they think the outcome should be.5. Person A claiming Person B should be punished and extorted for whatever reason is exactly what a society WITH government is. Does the guy who made this video turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the vast amount of sue-happy people that exist?
Some of the people in this comment section actually mentioned what he said is "brilliant", and that's because YouTube has a stigma for having a handful of gullible, unthinking audience members. If those same people actually took enough time and used enough brainpower to think about what he's saying, they'd see just how hollow and nonsensical his points are, and no one would take him seriously at all.
The reason we have government is beacuse the bullies have become so powerful nobody dares to challenge them.
Man Against The State, there is nothing wrong with honest government; government maintains the established rules/laws which the population agree to, and live by; it is dishonest government taken over by corruption that gives government a bad name. Humans are social creatures, to live together, we must have rules governing our behavior.
Laws are the rules we live by, often called morals. A moral is a social contract/agreement. If I agree not to kill you, and you agree not to kill me, we have a social agreement between us called a moral, which allows us both to go on with our lives without the fear of being killed by our neighbor. We can impose this law on all members of a society as long as the majority of society agree to it. When a person goes against the law, killing who ever they want for what ever reason they want, they become a threat to the cohesion of society; law gives the society the agreed to moral right to take action to stop the killer.
When corruption takes over law, then we have a problem. Throughout human history, all governments have been corrupted due to greed and lust to rule over others; their lays the problem. We must impose stronger laws on those (government) that we hire to maintain our laws, such as police, courts, and military. Presently, in American society, our government has become horrendously corrupted by a few who now rule over America as if it belongs to them, and that they think we are their slaves.
To solve this problem, we must create a new honest government within our communities and expel the corrupted individuals by whatever means necessary that have hijacked our governing system. It is not government that is bad, it is corrupted government that is bad…
Laws have to be universal, there is only one law in the world: private property, the ultimate conflict resolver.
It is the only law because it applies to each and every human, once it is a human characteristic and ethical classifier the capability to argument, which intrinsically envisions the capability to think and so to own private property, because of this, every human is above the law of private property, not above laws created by people.
In the first example of the apple conflict, it could not be known that the tree was ben’s once there it was no indication of this, such as fences, inscriptions or plates, or even ben’s other property there, as himself, or something else that could legitimate his possession of it.
Because Adam could not say that the tree was ben’s, the apples he took and delimited (in the bowl) are his, not because Charlie thinks that.
Adam’s act there [to take the apples (labour) and to delimit them (legitimation of possession)] define appropriation of unowned property (or abandoned property) which is envisioned by the law of private property.
I can't believe this retarded video has such a favourable like-to-dislike ratio.
The government provides services which everyone in some way will always use. It's not about forcing taxation it's about accepting that certain services are needed by all, and rather then work out who should pay for the road maintenance they just say in some way someone will use a service which uses roads in some way, so they just tax everyone, same with law, government makes laws which they believe are in the best interest of all and protect society and create peace, so they charge everyone because this benefits all. It's not about holding people hostage or forcing people to pay. It's about they do services which everyone uses.
People should have more control over those laws and the polices/bills that government creates. They should also be able to decide which areas of government they believe in and support those areas. Basically people should have more power over democracy. But ignoring that the point of government is to run the services which affect all people. Lets take the road example the government stops paying for road maintenance… arguments happen and no one maintains the road, no one beliefs they should have to fix the roads. The bill is very expensive and everyone points the finger at everyone else. Who pays? Now we need someone to work out who pays what… wait that is the job of government. So you can say a private organisation works out who owes what… but in the end this is just another word for government. Second lets say criminals steal things, that is if we go under the assumption that people still live in a capitalist economic society, and a large organisation of criminals start stealing people stuff, turning over houses, and taking cars? Who is going to stop them? You could organise a militia right… it's that just another name for police. So again the criminals would complain about the militia or groups of large enforcers. The reality is that in the current capitalist society, government grow to the size it is because of the need to have a government. Not because they wanted to take advantage of people.
So the only way to have a different system is to use a different system as the basis of society. You can't keep using capitalism you would have to use a new economic system, if you don't want the government how it is now. Since the government happened as a result of the current system.
6:43 – You can't be politician? You can't go in to law? You can't learn ethical principles on a large scale and be part of government? You can't do any of these acts?
Wait yes you can. So they don't have a monopoly over law, they simply state, if you don't have enough experience to the job, you can't do the job.
While I will agree people should have more power over government, government isn't one person, government is made up of many people, all of which have studied ethics to a high degree. So the reason they think they know best, is because they have thought a lot about ethical issues. More then a child for example or more then a person that spends most of their days working collecting apples from trees. We don't live on a desert island a lot has happened, there is a lot of history and a lot of situations which have entire books on what is right and wrong, these people have thought about right and wrong a lot learned a lot about this. So it's not that they have a monopoly of law, it's that most people think they are more qualified for the job.
So as I said before I think if a person could prove they had enough understanding of a topic then they should be able to influence those bills passed, and influence law. Basically I think the way the current government is, doesn't give people enough influence over government, unless they go in to government. Which is a problem. But over all the current government in a capitalist society is better then having no government at all. Since all the same problems with capitalism that lead to the current government being made, would simply repeat themselves.
8:12 – Of course law gets more complex as there is more parties involved. That is like saying a 1 on 1 football match is the same as a 5 a side football match, or a 11 aside football match. The more people there is the more complex the situations are. 10 people have a lot of different views to 3 people, then there is different belief systems, different cultures, different ideas about right or wrong in different areas. More people means things do get more complex. You might not say it's significantly different or something. But it obviously is. Say there is a criminal organisation of 1000 people. They realised if they work together they can take all your stuff, if there is no group to stop them, well a single person or small family isn't going to have the same impact over that organisation that a police force would, or a militia. So obviously when there is more people involved it is more complex, and not as simple as walking over to a single person and asking for stuff.
However I will agree that there is a lot of similarities between a small business and a large business for example. But a large business is far more complex. That is why management strategies came about, so CEOs could manage large businesses. So with government on a large scale it's more complex then a small court, but a small court is similar to government.
So implying it's the same on a large scale is false.
So this is like an early common law style system. Common law isn't inherently better than a democratically drafted statutory law. Slavery was legal under common law, and women couldn't own property. Whether the rules are established piecemeal, case-by-case, or by political deliberation and popular consent, there are still going to be rules people have to follow whether they like them or not, or else be punished. The fact that these rules are developed piecemeal doesn't make them just. At least under democracy we all have an equal say in writing the rules that we have to follow. Having to follow some rules some guy on an island generations ago came up with just because he was the one who was around at the time hardly seems like an ideal scenario.
Referring to policy as "law" or "laws" is a manipulation of language.
Your explanation is outstanding and imaginative.Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the superb video! I am so grateful to have found your channel.
I've studied in a communist country that government in any system (?) is an aparatus of pressure of ruling class over all other classes. This is true but it does not have to. It seems that people world wide try to make the natural order of government. THat we are the law makers and we have the power to grant within limits to the administrators who agree to protect us and our laws/rules.
NOBODY cares about the poor.NOBODY will stop the war.NOBODY will fix the system.NOBODY is the perfect politician.VOTE FOR NOBODY
Law Without Governmenthttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1647CADF96760B37
"Such an institution of coercion – centralizing immorality, directing theft and murder, and co-ordinating oppression on a scale inconceivable by random criminality – exists. It is the Mob of mobs, Gang of gangs, Conspiracy of conspiracies. It has murdered more people in a few recent years than all the deaths in history before that time; it has stolen in a few recent years more than all the wealth produced in history to that time; it has deluded – for its survival – more minds in a few recent years than all the irrationality of history to that time. Our Enemy, The State." -Samuel Edward Konkin III"The state is a gang of thieves writ large" -Murray Rothbard
Like and share to wake the masses.FACEBOOK.com/TheDollarIsAPonziSchemeAlliance of the Libertarian LeftALL-Left.netBlack flags for black markets!www.Agorism.info
Agora! Anarchy! Action!Ⓐ³ ⚑
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.