As we all know guys, anarchism is when white guys in black shirts burn down ethnic minority
communities. It’s when punk rock bands do stuff. If anarchy happened, everyone
would forget how to speak words, we’d all become barbarians running around punching each other,
and everything would be on fire, including the roads. Oh no, not our sacred roads!
And capitalism is when Coca-Cola death squads. It’s when money.
It’s also (paradoxically) when you haven’t got any money, because giant corporations hoard it
all in their vaults, and that explains why they’re all so massively in debt.
And it’s also when the Monopoly Man runs around eating poor people.
You know, he’s very very hungry. So Anarcho-Capitalism is when there’s absolute
chaos, but it’s also when big business steals from you and uses that wealth to pollute the planet.
So, whenever someone says that they’re an AnCap, this is what people think in their heads - they
think this guy must be absolutely insane, because who would want to live in such a world!?
So, my Patreon, Pablo, asked me (a couple times because I procrastinated for reasons
I explained in another video)... He asked if I was an Anarcho-Capitalist, and if not,
what do I think of Anarcho-Capitalism. But as I just explained, people don’t know what these
terms actually mean, and they jump to silly conclusions. So what I want to do is set the
record straight as to what Anarcho-Capitalism is, and then say whether I am an AnCap or not.
When the government builds a bridge, you see the guys working on the bridge. What you don’t
see is that all the government has done is moved those workers and resources from the rest of the
economy to the bridge. If the government hadn’t got involved, the guys working on the bridge would
be working in the rest of the economy to improve the living standards of the people within it.
The resources consumed by the bridge would also be going to the rest of the economy
as well. So even if it was a one-to-one trade, the government hasn’t created additional wealth
out of thin air. All they’ve done is taken resources (including labour) from the rest
of us wanted them to go, and shifted those things to where they (the central planners)
‘think’ is best. This is the concept of the “seen and the unseen”, brilliantly
outlined in Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”, which I highly recommend you all read.
Of course, it’s not a one-to-one trade. For every one worker on the bridge,
there’s a robber (also known as a tax man), a tax-enforcer (also known as a policeman),
and a playdoh (also known as a politician). There’s bureau-rats, BBC ministers for propaganda,
royal family members - loads of different people taking their cut from the resources robbed from
the rest of us. And so, instead of just five guys working on a bridge, it’s really like twenty
people who have been sucked out of the regular economy, most of whom are not actually productive.
The stupidity expands to meet the needs of the expanding stupidity.
And if the consumer wanted a bridge, and was willing to pay for it, then profit could be made
by constructing the bridge. Entrepreneurs would leap to the opportunity to meet the demands of the
consumer by building the bridge for that profit. Thus, if no bridge exists, or isn’t already under
construction by the market, then the consumer doesn’t want or need that bridge. Therefore,
there’s absolutely no need for the government to build the bridge in the first place, because
it’s not in demand. If it was in demand, then the entrepreneur would be building the bridge.
So when you see the government building a bridge (or doing any other project), then that means
there was no real demand for that bridge or project. In other words, it’s a misallocation
of scarce resources that have alternative uses (to quote Thomas Sowell, who’s not an AnCap).
Yes, people will use the bridge (assuming it actually gets completed and doesn’t fall down,
which it’s likely to do if the government builds it), and thus it does provide a benefit to the
people using it. However, if the government hadn’t gotten involved in the first place,
the resources would have been put to better use elsewhere in the economy. What we have is a host
of missed opportunities in the real economy, and what we’re left with is a fake economy.
Our living standards thus decline for every penny the government taxes from us and spends on public
works. Taxation, regulation, and inflation (caused by the state central banks) are all various means
of extracting wealth from you to keep you poor. The only way you can earn money is to provide
goods and services to other people. You can either earn your own wage by producing goods or services
for others, or you can trade your time for a paycheck working for someone else who produces
the goods and services. Either way, that’s a good thing; those processes make our living standards
improve. On the other hand, the government takes resources from us by threat of force, and thus
makes us poorer. The state is not a God. It’s not a wizard, or an alchemist. It cannot create
resources out of thin air. It cannot provide the things it promises to you without extracting
those resources from the rest of us. Nothing is free but the cheese on the trap. They’ll promise
you the world and deliver you into poverty, because that’s the mechanism of government.
For this, and for many other reasons, the free market is far superior to
any other economic system. But the unfortunate thing is that the Establishment do not like it,
because they’re in a position of power. Power means power over other people. And why would they
do a hard day’s work when you can do that work for them? They lord it about in their manors,
as us peasants labour in the fields - that’s their utopian paradise. They’re intent on
maintaining slavery, and that’s why they extract resources from the rest of us. It’s why the
taxation system exists in the first place. It’s feudalism and slavery, pure and simple. And so,
what they do is they employ mystics to convince you that this is all for your benefit.
Capitalism is a dirty word. The theologian known as Karl Marx coined the term as a smear,
and now everyone just assumes it means sinful money and greedy corporations.
Except, corporations (or Syndicates) are created by the State. In fact, corporations are actually
destroyed by the free market, as shown by books like “The Myth of the Robber Barons” by Folsom.
But I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty today. What I do want to make clear is that
a monopoly is not a free market, obviously. So a free market guy like myself is against
the government and the corporations, knowing that they’re one and the same (Syndicalism,
Fascism - whatever you want to call it). The government is a monopoly
corporation in and of itself, and it’s clearly not a free market.
And by the way, some AnCaps don’t realise this - they think corporations are part
of the free market, and end up defending the corporations. No, corporations are State entities,
and you’re accidentally defending the very thing you hate: socialism. So I actually disagree when
some AnCaps- even from the Mises Institute - defend corporations as if they’re products of
the free market. Guys, they’re not products of the free market. If you watch my video titled “Public
vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism” you will get clarity on this issue.
Anarchy just means “no state”. It doesn’t mean everything’s on fire, or people are barbarians.
It just means “no state”. And people will say: but without the state to enforce “law” and “order”,
then it would be chaos… (Because it’s definitely not chaos and disorder right now is it with our
beloved monopoly corporation running the show?) But again, anarchy just means “no
state”. It doesn’t mean “no law and order”, or no fire services, or no roads. If there’s
a market for it (which there is) then these services would be fulfilled by the entrepreneur.
Imagine a world where we have multiple competing restaurants, all catering for your various needs.
You can go to a magical place called McDonalds, or Pizza Hut, or KFC, or Nandos, or some other local
place… you name it! I mean, that sounds pretty good, right? I know it sounds like an impossible
dream - I mean, imagine if we had that variety of different options today. What a wonderful utopia
that would be! But I think this is possible if we allow the market to do what is needed.
Well, let’s also imagine multiple competing fire serves, aiming to provide you with the best and
quickest service possible. Imagine multiple police services, all competing to be the best
and actually tackle crime, instead of being the criminals themselves. Imagine a world where there
were multiple competing judicial services, with the most corrupt and incompetent judges
going out of business, like every single judge currently involved in the family law system.
That’s why the State has monopoly control right now because if there were multiple competing
judicial services, our fascist governments would be out of business in a heartbeat. Same with the
military. There would be a market for security, and these multiple competing police and military
services would aim to provide you with the most efficient security at the cheapest prices.
Obviously, I’m skirting over an entire ocean of explanation here,
and I know the knee jerk reaction will be - none of that is possible, it wouldn’t work in reality,
it’s a utopia. I understand that criticism, and it’s generally understood in the AnCap community
that the market for security is the one that trips people up the most because we’re all so
used to thinking in terms of the monopoly corporations providing law and order, that
any other possibility just cannot be imagined.. However, if you’ve never heard these ideas before,
I’d say it’s worth looking into and thinking about, because the alternative is that we just
have more of the same. And I don’t know about you, but more of the same isn’t what I want.
My overarching point is that: people think anarchy is when white guys in black shirts
burn down ethnic minority communities, or when punk rock bands do stuff. But these things are
happening right now WITH the State. We haven’t got “anarchy”, and these things are still happening.
Now, in a free market society you might still have these things, but you’d also have an
effective market for security that would defend your private property from those who wish to rob
and enslave you. The world would be a much safer and far more stable place if we didn’t have giant
monopoly corporations known as states running the show. That’s what free marketeers want.
And now we get to the question: am I an AnCap? Do I believe in anarcho-capitalism? And honestly,
maybe… I’m certainly leaning towards it, but you’ve got to understand
that I only realised that socialism was evil when I was 31. I’m 36 now,
and the past five years have been a grind to say the least. (This channel is hard work.) So
I’ve not had sufficient time to read the literature in enough detail on the ‘anarcho’
part of anarcho-capitalism to come to any definite conclusions. I can tell you that
the arguments for the free market made by Mises and so on completely outclass the arguments for
socialist mysticism. It’s the anarcho-side of it that I’ve not had sufficient time to read about.
Murray Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty said that man is a rational actor.
Clearly he had never met a millennial (I can get away with saying that because I am one).
Men aren’t always rational, and that irrationality results in problems. I can
imagine anarcho-capitalism working in practice if certain conditions were met, but my question
for the AnCaps out here is: if there is a market for a state, then can we really deny the market?
As soon as one person wants a state, that need is met by the entrepreneur, at which
point we no longer have Ancapistan. And if we say no to the market wishing to found a state,
then we’re going against the market. This is the sticking point. So if the answer to this problem
exists please point me in the right direction, but as I say, this is the sticking point.
I am of the opinion that at the very least that, if a state does exist, taxation should
be voluntary. There’s no justification for a coercive theft system. If people want to pay tax,
then they should be free to waste their money. But nobody should be forced to pay for something
that they don’t want nor believe in. And I think every state in existence right now is a criminal
organisation full of playdohs, and I think anyone denying that clearly has their head in
the sand when it comes to what’s happening in places I best not mention on YouTube.
So I’m close, but I’ve simply not had enough time to read about it,
and I’d rather be flexible and not nail myself to a cross right now. And even though I’m definitely
an anti-corporation free market guy, I also don’t like the terms “anarchism” or “capitalism”.
They have negative connotations, the latter was invented by someone who hated free markets,
and they give false impressions to people as to what they mean. So I think even if I was an AnCap,
I wouldn’t call myself one anyway, because I don’t think these terms are helpful. Same with
the term “libertarian”, or “Austrian”. Like, I’ve had people in the comments claiming I’m
standing for the Habsburg Monarchy, or Fascism, because Austria was Fascist at one point.
So, new terms need to be created, but in the mean time, I’m just going to describe
myself as an anti-corporation free market guy, which I think conveys the message fairly well.
With all that said, there were more questions from Pablo about how I see things working and whatnot,
but I want to keep this video short so it’s more accessible to everyone, and I’ll come
back to those questions in the future. Let me know where you all stand on any of this; did
I enlighten any of you to what these terms mean? Comment below. Thanks for watching, bye for now.