Anarchist-Minarchist Debate | David Gordon

Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 19, 2018.

Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics, and is the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream.

[ihateyankees]

Socialist: Hey Murray Rothbard! If the free market is so good, then why shouldn't we privatize everything?
Murray Rothbard: 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Socialist: wait no stop it

[shmutz]

set playback speed to x1.25 so he talks normal

[morningstarx]

David Gordon is definitely one of the most underappreciated geniuses over there at the mises institute. The man is brilliant, and retains knowledge like nobody I've ever listened to.

[brianbob]

29:20 We don't need a state we need "an agreement on a system of rights and laws" Wait a minute, that sounds like a constitution. You know what those lead to?

[davidhunt]

What is the essential function of government that only government can serve and no other form of social organization. I believe it is more useful to think in terms of what unchosen, positive duties must be observed by everyone in order for a free society to function well. Consider...

*The Anarchist’s Constitution*

1. *There is no Sovereign Immunity.* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule.* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed, … do whatever you will.

Remember, … any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply. To be very clear, ... I conceive of a positive, unchosen duty to be a duty that everyone *MUST* observe and submit to, and, if someone ignores their allegiance to a positive, unchosen duty, socially sanctioned initiatory violence may be, and will be, used to make moral free riders comply.

Anarchists insist that they want a society that consists of _rules without rulers_ but then seem to insist that no one can know what those rules are until afterwards, ... which, understandably, sounds fairly frightening to most folks who want more reassurance about how socially sanctioned initiatory force will work in the future.



All mathematics depend upon sets of axioms which are universally accepted as being self-evidently true statements that require no further proof. Until human moral philosophers can come up with such a set of moral axioms for humanity at large, ... governments in practice will, necessarily, continue to serve as our only practical alternative.

Please consider my statements/questions and leave your comments. What _rules without rulers_ do you think must apply, even without individual consent, in order for a free society to function well? I emphatically agree that democracy sucks. Let's discuss alternatives, and why others must comply with such alternatives, ... or else face violent results.

If it's any help, ... I consider myself to be 90% convinced of anarcho-capitalism, and have been so since I first become libertarian back in 1982 when I was 27 years old. But I also take the matter, of when there is to be a use of socially sanctioned initatory violence allowed and how it is regulated, very seriously. I have always very much wanted to be convinced of an-cap, ... so help me if you will. I very much consider my *Anarchist's Constitution* to be a work in progress. Please help me in filling it out.

Does the truth derive from authority or
Does authority derive from the truth?

Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?

Is it easier to effectively organize people using voluntary association or threats of violence?

If it is wrong for the strong to exploit the weak, ... how is it not wrong for the weak to exploit the strong also?

Does equality under the law mean equal process under the law, or equal outcomes by law?

What unchosen, positive duties must a free people submit to in order for a society to be just and prosperous? Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists would seem to recognize _if you break it, you must fix it_ as such an unchosen, positive duty that all free people must comply with regardless of individual consent or not. While this one unchosen, positive duty is necessary, is it sufficient? Remember that every unchosen, positive duty necessarily grants the state (or whatever serves the coercive function of the state) the duty to use socially sanctioned initiatory violence in order to make moral free riders comply.

While there are many things free people *should* do, what things *must* a free people do?

[alexgibson]

How much of our social systems are the result of biology or evolution? the rationalist schools justify using logic and rights, but is the failure to implement an ancap system due to something rational or evolutionary? How do concepts of human nature feature in a cap literature? Any reading recommendations? Thanks.

[supersam]

“Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution. As without it no lasting cooperation and no civilization can be developed and preserved. “- Ludwig von Mises

[jamie]

If your hoping for a fair and balanced debate weighing up the points between minarchisim and anarchism then you'll be disappointed.

The video should be titled "in defence of anarchism, a critique of the minarchist objections".

[ChitranjanBaghiofficial]

If two individual has resources they can either trade or steal.
Depending upon the cost of doing so different individual may prefer different ways of achieving it.

Trade is only possible when cost of stealing and violence is more than the cost of trade.

But if cost of trade is high then stealing and violence would be best bet to achieve the resource.

This is individual level but even a group of individual may form ties with trade such that among themselves cost of trading is way less because of commonality, while with other group cost of trading is high as there is no commonality and trust.

So what is true at individual level is also true at group level.

Thus when there will be competition among groups, it is inevitable that within groups there will be hierarchy, which will set the leader and thus the political structure.

Other specializations like army chief or finance minister are just optimization of same structure for optimal performance against other groups.

Thus there will always be a government no matter how small but it will always be there.

The only sustainable model anarchism can achieve is small anarchy groups competing against other anarchy groups with their own small political system.

And people are free to leave and join different groups as per their wants and needs. But even that system will require some rules for leaving, thinks will be mess if one takes debt and loan in one group and enjoys it and then when it comes time to pay leaves the group to join the other,
Thus this idea of hopping groups is also needed to be solved.

[fredericktarr]

I support the free market because it is efficient at allocating resources, not because I care about "rights". Therefore I support minarchism with an absolute monarchy.

[konberner]

"Both accept individual rights, including property rights and want a free market economy." This already glosses over the fact that both property rights and free market economy are utterly unclear concepts that require substantial definition before proceeding. Sorry, David, but this error alone make it impossible for me to follow the rest. For me this is like trying to teach addition in math without ever explaining what adding is. Certainly if you want to presume your definitions are the right ones, then everything becomes very clear (in your own mind only).

[enjoiskaterguy]

David Gorden isn't exactly the best lecturer to keep you alert, awake and intrigued.

[Wookie.Boogie]

0:30 Anarchism does not accept property rights. Anarchism makes a clear distinction between personal and private property. For anarchism personal property (your clothes, items, home, furniture etc) is fine, but private property (ownership on means of production, like land, production machinery, whole factories etc with the goal of making profit) is not. One of the first philosophical claims of anarchism was the famous "Property is theft" argument, which still hasn't been properly rebutted by any private property defender. Nevertheless, basing a lecture on a false premise, does not help with the credibility of anything else this lecture pretends to analyze.

[Max-nczn]

You can't have a free market and a state.

[theprodigy]

All sides of this debate (as presented) seem to agree to the premise that private security agencies would be law creator, interpreter, and enforcer all in one. The solution would necessitate that there exist Governance Service Providers that offer packages at varying prices, including security and arbitration, which would be carried out by security agencies and arbitration agencies that are hired and fired by the Governance Service Provider.

[michaelrochelle]

Minarchists don’t believe that the state should have a monopoly on said services do they?

[senselessnothing]

Thankfully it does not seem like we need to take a position on the matter because its so far away.

[TheKyfe]

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with the defense of Minarchy isn't the flaws within their arguments, but the flaws in the choice of arguments. Why get so complicated when the easiest arguments are the simplest?

Argument #1 (National Defense) - As long as the ENTIRE WORLD is not anarchist, other states will be looking to exert their influence/power over others. In the supposedly "most free" country in the world (USA), 90%+ of the population wants to exert their influence/power over others (and then this 90% is then split in half (Republicans vs Democrats)). Until the number of people who do not wish to use force to exert control equals close to 100% (a far cry from the current numbers), then national defense is absolutely necessary.

Argument #1(A) (National Defense cannot be provided privately) - Those that argue FOR private national defense take for granted that those paying for the service are rational actors, which flies in the face of ALL Austrian Economic Theory. Those paying for the service are NOT rational. In a situation where they do not see a need for immediate national defense, the vast majority of funds will not be made available to those people providing the service. This will prevent those people from properly training and equipping themselves. Once an immediate need for national defense is presented, the populace will find themselves with an under-equipped, under-trained, non-cohesive force up against a properly-equipped, fully-trained, cohesive force that will utterly devastate any attempts of resistance.

Argument #2 (Private use of the initiation of force is an Oxymoron) - The Free Market and anarchism fundamentally entails not using force. Privately providing use of force is a contradiction that I have not seen an adequate argument for.

Argument #3 (A private company dealing with the initiation of force that out-competes competition BECOMES the State) - In a society where the free market provides the services of Defense, Police, and Justice, there WILL be companies that out-compete others for various reasons just like in every other market. In a market that does not involve force, once a company that out-competes the competition turns away from those practices, then they will no longer out-compete the competition and will lose their market share. In a market that does involve force, once a company that out-competes the competition turns away from those practices, then they will use force to suppress their competitors, thus BECOMING the state. Human nature necessitates that this is an inevitable outcome.

[tytly-rovt]

The only thing needed by the state is enforcement of justice, for instance breach of contract or fraud

[ConsciousOne]

The minarchist argument for a small limited government is because the people can vote and elect representatives that can carry out the defense program that the people would like. However if it were private we would be buying defense for money which knowing humans tends to make a lot of people think that there would be chaos.