Adam Kokesh

[Phatscotty]

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's a summary:


1. The individual has inalienable rights, implication: property rights over one's body.
(this is a 'fundamental rights' approach---see Locke).

2. Implication of 1: One should not initiate violence against another or their property, since that would violate their rights.
(in other words, "negative freedom/liberty for the win" + "non-aggression principle"--see Isaiah Berlin and libertarianism a la Jason Brennan, respectively).

3. Therefore, all human interactions should be free of force, fraud, coercion, ...
4. And, 'people should be free to exercise their rights--so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.'
("rights" as in property rights).

5. Don't steal, Don't hit.
6. Government says don't do those actions, otherwise we'll use force against you.
"Force is a poor substitute for persuasion."

7. So what's the alternative of statism? "knowledge, philosophy, and technology" would lead to empowering ourselves with the tools to move past statism by restraining government and then eventually moving to "cooperative, free market solutions."

[BigBallinStalin]

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

So, the OP is an example of inept defense, but given the constraints of YouTube attention spans, I'll partially excuse the video. I disagree with some of his claims, but I'm here to bolster the defense, so if you have any qualms, I'm here to answer and ask questions.

[Lootifer]

Sounds boring. Can't you just tell us what to do?

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds boring. Can't you just tell us what to do?

Of course. I'll appeal to the people's sentiments and ideologies, thus becoming a successful dictator or politician---which goes against the grain of being libertarianian. Libertarianism seems to be a self-defeating stance as far as politics is concerned, thus it's more of an educational movement.

[/]

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

So, the OP is an example of inept defense, but given the constraints of YouTube attention spans, I'll partially excuse the video. I disagree with some of his claims, but I'm here to bolster the defense, so if you have any qualms, I'm here to answer and ask questions.

This is a rather interesting debate; let’s assume we did somehow abolish the government without instantly becoming slaves to another country’s government due to the absence of a systematically competitive and regulated military to protect us, and move on.

- How would the free market decide on TV/ Radio stations? I’m not talking about what to air on a station, but the right to broadcast a signal using one of the finite numbers of frequencies so as not to overlap with whomever else might want their broadcast their songs on "channel 99.3" or whatever.

- One of the major challenges facing first world nations is cyber security. Say a hacker wants your credit card number, what is your defense against this? Perhaps you could install anti-virus software, however, what prevents the antivirus company from installing the virus? Perhaps even in the absence of an official investigatory agency individual experts could say “Hey guys, that’s a virus!”, but word of mouth testimony is unreliable when there is no reason not to think those same experts aren’t just working for an opposing company trying to put a rival out of business.

-What would be the standard for currency and how would it be distributed? Counterfeiting is getting increasingly advanced, without an organization invested in making a reliable currency, how would the average citizen know what’s in their pocket? Many advocate gold, but even that is highly subject to unreliability without professional scrutiny.

- How would natural resources be handled? Basic necessities like water, something everyone needs. Is it owned by whoever manages to build their house next to a river first? Whose responsibility is it to keep it clean, or to keep the pipes maintained? I live in a desert and water needs to be carefully rationed, if enough idiots keep their hoses running out into the streets, local farms might die and people could starve.

-How would liability and safety be handled? Let’s say you eat bread made with a chemical that eventually makes your arms fall off years later. In the absence of an official court or law enforcement system, how is justice handled? The company has done you harm, but there’s no proof it wasn’t the juice you drank or the insulation in your house. Without that evidence there is no reason to invade the factory as it is the personal property of the owner, so where is the line drawn between unlawful snooping and lawful investigation?

[Dukasaur]

Sounds boring. Can't you just tell us what to do?

If I told you what to do, they'd take away my coloured nametag.

[Dukasaur]

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

I know. <big sigh>

[AndyDufresne]

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

I know. <big sigh>

--Andy

[Woodruff]

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

That's why I love Phatscotty.

[BigBallinStalin]

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

So, the OP is an example of inept defense, but given the constraints of YouTube attention spans, I'll partially excuse the video. I disagree with some of his claims, but I'm here to bolster the defense, so if you have any qualms, I'm here to answer and ask questions.

This is a rather interesting debate; let’s assume we did somehow abolish the government without instantly becoming slaves to another country’s government due to the absence of a systematically competitive and regulated military to protect us, and move on.

Right, mercenaries.

- How would the free market decide on TV/ Radio stations? I’m not talking about what to air on a station, but the right to broadcast a signal using one of the finite numbers of frequencies so as not to overlap with whomever else might want their broadcast their songs on "channel 99.3" or whatever.

Who knows, but the FCC won't be in charge. You can perhaps pay people to stop interfering with your wavelengths at varying distances--use courts and what not. Who knows, I can't predict spontaneous order.

If you care about the FCC, he's someone that's much more knowledgeable about it:
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2004/06/07/is_the_fcc_obso/

- One of the major challenges facing first world nations is cyber security. Say a hacker wants your credit card number, what is your defense against this? Perhaps you could install anti-virus software, however, what prevents the antivirus company from installing the virus? Perhaps even in the absence of an official investigatory agency individual experts could say “Hey guys, that’s a virus!”, but word of mouth testimony is unreliable when there is no reason not to think those same experts aren’t just working for an opposing company trying to put a rival out of business.

Does the government provide all security at this moment? No, businesses are doing the heavy-lifting in protecting your information, and as they fail, customers are more inclined to use the services of more secure areas.

If the antivirus company installs the virus, then obviously that was fraud and theft. Take them to court, how about a class action suit?

Since investigations in court proceedings would undoubtedly be useful, then obviously that kind of business would become profitable; therefore, such services would be provided to investigate such matters--just as it's done in today's world where the government isn't necessary for providing such services...

For matters on anarchy and law, see: Anarchy and the Law, https://mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-the-Law-P335.aspx
There's also Benson's The Enterprise of Law: Justice without the State

-What would be the standard for currency and how would it be distributed? Counterfeiting is getting increasingly advanced, without an organization invested in making a reliable currency, how would the average citizen know what’s in their pocket? Many advocate gold, but even that is highly subject to unreliability without professional scrutiny.

Who knows, legal tender laws prohibit us from using only alternatives forms of currency; we must accept US dollars. If such a law didn't exist, then people would swap to more stable currencies whose central planners do not constantly devalue them with the myth of 'stimulating the economy'.

It would be somewhat similar to banking back then (pre-1913) plus the Internet. The 'unreliability without professional scrutiny' matter has been addressed for centuries without the need of government. Counterfeiting happens today, so "how would the average citizen know what's in their pocket"? I'm sure you can think of the answers--e.g. cashiers using those pens, holding up cash to a light, banks also handle much of this, and there's plenty of safeguards in check. A Central Bank isn't necessary for anything of this.

For more on free banking, see this guy: http://www.freebanking.org/author/white/
(book: Competition and Currency)

- How would natural resources be handled? Basic necessities like water, something everyone needs. Is it owned by whoever manages to build their house next to a river first? Whose responsibility is it to keep it clean, or to keep the pipes maintained? I live in a desert and water needs to be carefully rationed, if enough idiots keep their hoses running out into the streets, local farms might die and people could starve.

Through very complex arrangements. This is a long topic, so there's Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons, which analyzes how certain communities succeed in governing their own common-pool resources (water, etc.).

Prices organize the underlined problem. Currently, State governments and the Federal government set the prices on water extremely low to please voters, which in turn induces us into using exorbitant amounts of water. One of the greatest environmental problems regarding the use of water is actually strongly encouraged by government today. If anything, we should be concerned about that since it's occurring everyday. (Governments also subsidize farmers on their water expenses--e.g. they let them have water at 1/10th the price, so that they can expand agriculture into less efficient (drier, more arid) lands. It's very wasteful, and without letting prices work, then consumption can 'get outta whack'.)

-How would liability and safety be handled? Let’s say you eat bread made with a chemical that eventually makes your arms fall off years later. In the absence of an official court or law enforcement system, how is justice handled? The company has done you harm, but there’s no proof it wasn’t the juice you drank or the insulation in your house. Without that evidence there is no reason to invade the factory as it is the personal property of the owner, so where is the line drawn between unlawful snooping and lawful investigation?

How would 10,000 court companies handle liability and safety? Depends---just as how would >1 million shoe companies create shoes?

2nd question: well, it may be handled how it is today--i.e. either ignored (statute of limitations), or not if the case is strong enough. This is an age-old problem that isn't resolved with government-provided courts---just sayin'. For the other questions, I can invent particular scenarios (of today's government) where people would balk and... reject government? "No, that doesn't sound right," but it's what you're doing. 'Let's set the assumptions, so that a case is extremely difficult to resolve'

Which form of organization is better equipped at innovating in order to overcome the (knowledge) problem? Markets or central planning based on revenue through coercion?


Anarchy and the Law, and
the Enterprise of Law deal with those questions.
There's also David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom too.

[/]

- How would the free market decide on TV/ Radio stations? I’m not talking about what to air on a station, but the right to broadcast a signal using one of the finite numbers of frequencies so as not to overlap with whomever else might want their broadcast their songs on "channel 99.3" or whatever.

Who knows, but the FCC won't be in charge. You can perhaps pay people to stop interfering with your wavelengths at varying distances--use courts and what not. Who knows, I can't predict spontaneous order.

If you care about the FCC, he's someone that's much more knowledgeable about it:
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2004/06/07/is_the_fcc_obso/

Actually, I like your solution better than the one in the link. Of course it's always a pain to deal with the oddball that like to create chaos for the sake of chaos, but it's still preferable to thinking that one can "own" a frequency in my opinion.

- How would natural resources be handled? Basic necessities like water, something everyone needs. Is it owned by whoever manages to build their house next to a river first? Whose responsibility is it to keep it clean, or to keep the pipes maintained? I live in a desert and water needs to be carefully rationed, if enough idiots keep their hoses running out into the streets, local farms might die and people could starve.

Through very complex arrangements. This is a long topic, so there's Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons, which analyzes how certain communities succeed in governing their own common-pool resources (water, etc.).

Prices organize the underlined problem. Currently, State governments and the Federal government set the prices on water extremely low to please voters, which in turn induces us into using exorbitant amounts of water. One of the greatest environmental problems regarding the use of water is actually strongly encouraged by government today. If anything, we should be concerned about that since it's occurring everyday. (Governments also subsidize farmers on their water expenses--e.g. they let them have water at 1/10th the price, so that they can expand agriculture into less efficient (drier, more arid) lands. It's very wasteful, and without letting prices work, then consumption can 'get outta whack'.)

That actually sounds like a very interesting read.
I can agree with that, it is best to be mindful of the Earth's natural limitations rather than to focus on expansion.
Though to a certain extent, water seems like it should be a basic human right, at least enough to survive and stay clean, so I can also agree with the government on making it affordable for the average citizen.
Perhaps the water could be priced on a tier based level. Cheap to a certain point to cover basic needs, then market price past that.

How would 10,000 court companies handle liability and safety? Depends---just as how would >1 million shoe companies create shoes?

2nd question: well, it may be handled how it is today--i.e. either ignored (statute of limitations), or not if the case is strong enough. This is an age-old problem that isn't resolved with government-provided courts---just sayin'. For the other questions, I can invent particular scenarios (of today's government) where people would balk and... reject government? "No, that doesn't sound right," but it's what you're doing. 'Let's set the assumptions, so that a case is extremely difficult to resolve'

Which form of organization is better equipped at innovating in order to overcome the (knowledge) problem? Markets or central planning based on revenue through coercion?

My apologies for framing the scenario in an unfair light; as a skeptic, I suppose my mind naturally tends to the worst case scenarios.

I suppose the main thing I've never really understood is, what exactly is the law in "anarchy"?
I really can't wrap my head around the idea of what a privatized court is; like if I'm working for BP or something, and we cause a horrible disaster, what is my incentive to defer to the judgement of "Walt Disney's Magical Court of Law" when they are just another company without any logical authority over me?

I'm not sure if we're talking about a de facto government in place of government, mob rule, an army of mercenaries hired to arrest whoever their boss says is a law breaker, or what.


Anyways, my thanks for taking the time to discuss.

[BigBallinStalin]

- How would natural resources be handled? Basic necessities like water, something everyone needs. Is it owned by whoever manages to build their house next to a river first? Whose responsibility is it to keep it clean, or to keep the pipes maintained? I live in a desert and water needs to be carefully rationed, if enough idiots keep their hoses running out into the streets, local farms might die and people could starve.

Through very complex arrangements. This is a long topic, so there's Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons, which analyzes how certain communities succeed in governing their own common-pool resources (water, etc.).

Prices organize the underlined problem. Currently, State governments and the Federal government set the prices on water extremely low to please voters, which in turn induces us into using exorbitant amounts of water. One of the greatest environmental problems regarding the use of water is actually strongly encouraged by government today. If anything, we should be concerned about that since it's occurring everyday. (Governments also subsidize farmers on their water expenses--e.g. they let them have water at 1/10th the price, so that they can expand agriculture into less efficient (drier, more arid) lands. It's very wasteful, and without letting prices work, then consumption can 'get outta whack'.)

That actually sounds like a very interesting read.
I can agree with that, it is best to be mindful of the Earth's natural limitations than to focus on expansion.
Though to a certain extent, water seems like it should be a basic human right, at least enough to survive and stay clean, so I can also agree with the government on making it affordable for the average citizen.
Perhaps the water could be priced on a tier based level. Cheap to a certain point to cover basic needs, then market price past that.

I'm not amenable to accepting basic goods as 'rights', in that others are obligated to provide good X at price Y. I resist not because I think that we, the people, are not obligated to help others (we should help others, but I don't insist on forcing others to do so), but that the language of positive rights leads to an appeal to the state, thus reinforcing the many problems and external costs of the political process. In other words, calling for rights enforced by the state merely grants politicians another excuse to exploit everyone of their earnings while granting privileges to a select few (i.e. crony capitalism).

Instead, I'm about allowing people to buy and sell various types of water at various prices. People will sell water regardless--unless the price of doing nothing with the water is greater than the price of selling the water (which is something I don't see occurring, since that would be a significant loss to the owner in opportunity cost). If that did happen, entrepreneurs seeking profit would gladly bid up the price to buy/rent that water which they in turn sell to others.

We have to remember that water is not one homogenous good. Water of varying quality has various uses, which in turn allows various types of water to be sold at different prices. This way, even the poorest can afford water--of varying quality for various uses. It depends on how much they're willing to forego expenditures on other goods in exchange for various qualities of water available (e.g. less high-quality television sets and instead better quality water), and without (or hardly any taxation) new income is freed up for charitable contributions and also non-charitable market exchanges which ultimately help those in their times of need.

Suppose one's monthly bill for water was $200--given current rates of consumption. If one seeks to profit-maximize by reducing this cost, then they'll (1) consume less water (i.e. use less in showers, on their car, dishes, etc.), which is better for the environment. Sellers in the market can see the profit of providing more efficient appliances if the price of water increases, thus will in turn provide such goods for the improvement of humanity--through their own self-interest, however defined. And/or (2) people can seek substitutes--i.e. one can provide one's own water by recycling it--e.g. see graywater systems. The market is great at providing solutions to people's various needs--but as for the government, not so much, and it instead prolongs the problems while 'asking' for more money to 'fix' problems it creates.

If you wish to induce a more efficient use of water, then we can't allow the government to control its prices; otherwise, the incentive to use water more efficiently is less effective---because the price of water is mandated at such a low price. I agree that setting the price at "Cheap to a certain point to cover basic needs, then market price past that," is ideal, but with the political process you won't get a strict adherence to such refined calculations because you'll always get exemptions and privileges (e.g. cheap water to farmers using inefficient soil). And, with that policy, you induce marginally less consumers to more efficiently use their water. Prices help coordinate human activities; government-mandated prices in this case mostly hinder coordination.

How would 10,000 court companies handle liability and safety? Depends---just as how would >1 million shoe companies create shoes?

2nd question: well, it may be handled how it is today--i.e. either ignored (statute of limitations), or not if the case is strong enough. This is an age-old problem that isn't resolved with government-provided courts---just sayin'. For the other questions, I can invent particular scenarios (of today's government) where people would balk and... reject government? "No, that doesn't sound right," but it's what you're doing. 'Let's set the assumptions, so that a case is extremely difficult to resolve'

Which form of organization is better equipped at innovating in order to overcome the (knowledge) problem? Markets or central planning based on revenue through coercion?

My apologies for framing the scenario in an unfair light; as a skeptic, I suppose my mind naturally tends to the worst case scenarios.

I suppose the main think I've never really understood is, what exact is the law in "anarchy"?
I really can't wrap my head around the idea of what a privatized court is; like if I'm working for BP or something, and we cause a horrible disaster, what is my incentive to defer to the judgement of "Walt Disney's Magical Court of Law" when they are just another company without any logical authority over me?

I'm not sure if we're talking about a de facto government in place of government, mob rule, an army of mercenaries hired to arrest whoever their boss says is a law breaker, or what.

Anyways, my thanks for taking the time to discuss.

I've had that problem too years ago, so I understand. First, we should note that "anarchy" is not "life without rules." Instead, it is life without government. In the absence of state-mandated laws, the ONLY result is not total lawlessness/"ruleslessness" because social order is possible in varying degrees without the state (the 'state', as in a federal, State, municipal government).

Second, there's a difference between rules and law. In the literature of "new institutionalism"(namely, Douglass North), there are two types of rules: formal and informal. Formal rules can entail government-imposed rules (the Law), community-imposed rules (homeowners' association), or rules codified within any contract (@ work, a receipt, etc.).

Informal rules are simply rules that aren't codified--e.g. the ways in which we manipulate language beyond the codified rules of grammar (e.g. "lulz"), or the informal rules along which we sometimes adhere to and sometimes do not in our many conversations on this forum (e.g. "don't be a dick," or "it's okay to be a dick in this circumstance"). Consider the informal rules on the various levels of trolling--from the tolerable to intolerable.

Thus arises the difficulty in designing rules to curb/constrain the following of informal, conflicting rules--that's pretty much what is happening with moderation @ CC and with any governing body/central planner. Arguably, in the OT, we have spontaneous order--in that through no design of our own, we've come to a generally agreeable limit on people's freedoms. Basically, "leave us a lone to organize ourselves" is exemplary of that order--but of course there is the influence of voluntarily agreed upon CC rules (the CC Law).

[BigBallinStalin]

The big controversy is (a) what does the heavy-lifting, and (b) what is the default order of humans? That is, (a) does spontaneous order (including markets) develop the groundwork which corrects for the blunders of the government and its imposed order, or does the government and its imposed order lay the foundation upon which spontaneous order is even possible? (b) Are humans by default predisposed to order (Hayek, Mill, Adam Smith, etc.), or are they predisposed to disorder--i.e. leading 'nasty, brutish, and short lives' (Hobbes)?

[Lootifer]

They are predisposed to plunging the depths of one anothers mothers; namely me plunging your mums depths.

[BigBallinStalin]

They are predisposed to plunging the depths of one anothers mothers; namely me plunging your mums depths.

I once took your mum on canoe ride to a pleasant, exclusive beach, whereupon she asked me to spank her repeatedly with the paddle as the sun was setting. I of course happily agreed and after a furious bout of sex, we gazed upon the infinity of space, and I thought to myself: capitalist acts between consenting adults is not at all wrong.

[Phatscotty]

He just got out of jail, and he is already organizing another "smoke-down", this time at the White House, and he's inviting Obama "President Choom" to come out and burn one with him.