Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[rong]

It could but I think that's a step in the right direction because it means the premise that the government monopoly is the same as the feared violent gangs of an anarchistic society has been accepted. The government monopoly is just a far more sophisticated form of the violent gang.

At that point I think the libertarian argument should become that the "worst-case scenario" happening in a stateless society is unreasonable. The state is a concept and institution formed in the origins of civilizations, where poverty was immense, technology was nothing, and people were sorely unproductive. Contrasted to today, where productivity and technology are mountains higher, and we'll find that the incentive we would face in a stateless society is antipodal to the incentive our ancestors faced. Capitalism has wholly changed the paradigm and what was once our greatest weakness (the capability to defend our interests) has become our greatest strength. Individuals, communities, and corporations would have more than enough incentive and capacity to subvert the growth of violent gangs .

At the bold, it's one he'll of a bet to make. Because if you're wrong, a bunch of us may get murdered /raped /pillaged.

It's a little like the environment and global warming. Some people say it's not completely proven or agreed that we are responsible global warming or that it is necessarily a hugely dangerous thing, but if we bet against it and lose, we night just destroy the entire planet.

[Renton]

At the bold, it's one he'll of a bet to make. Because if you're wrong, a bunch of us may get murdered /raped /pillaged.

Well, we're already getting raped and pillaged by the state in a lot of ways. I think that is the most useful contribution of the video, that the state is basically a sophisticated form of organized crime.

[wufwugy]

At the bold, it's one he'll of a bet to make. Because if you're wrong, a bunch of us may get murdered /raped /pillaged.

It's a little like the environment and global warming. Some people say it's not completely proven or agreed that we are responsible global warming or that it is necessarily a hugely dangerous thing, but if we bet against it and lose, we night just destroy the entire planet.

That's why I propose doing it gradually. I would much rather devise a hundred year plan to go stateless than to go overnight. Even then, the only real important thing is to have a culture of liberty so that wherever issues arise, the response from the people is "the people can solve this problem, the government only makes it worse".