Statism utilizes the notion of the public good to supposedly justify the use of force on members of a population within the territory controlled by the particular state.  This is done through a territorial monopoly on the use of violence to coerce and expropriate wealth from the captive population of the particular state’s region of domination.

The goal of anarcho-capitalism, is to transition to a more free society with truly free markets, where goods and services are produced without the threat of force from government and government created monopolies.  The government, via its legislated advantages and monopolies, destroys the free market and creates countless advantages for giant corporations and well connected individuals.  This kind of corrupt, state centered system, helps to exacerbate the growing gap between rich and poor and impoverishes society as a whole by destroying the great wealth engine we call the free market.

The discussion in this video is between anarcho-capitalist activist Adam Kokesh and statist “Noah”, who is arguing for government force to create the so-called public good.  It’s interesting to note that Noah dusts off the old  free to leave argument, if we don’t want government to force its services upon us and of course the accompanying tax payment for those services.

That’s an interesting kind of society that our youth have been brought up to want, a society where the government makes many of your major decisions for you via corrupt politicians and an ignorant electorate.  Where in this statist utopia are the protections of the individual from having their rights voted away by the majority?

Adam Kokesh: I want, through grass roots, bottom up ways of coming together voluntarily.  I want to be able to create those things [services for the common good] in a society where people’s rights are respected, rather than in a system that’s top down, as you’re describing, where a system is decided on by a group of people by voting or electing representatives and forcing that system on the people.  I want those things and I want to find a way to create them while respecting other people’s rights.  I want to find a way to create all of those things without putting guns to people’s heads to make them pay for things that they don’t want.

Noah: I think the threat of force can be separated from violence.

Adam Kokesh: But is the threat of force any more morally acceptable.

Noah: Yes, I believe it can.

Adam Kokesh: So threatening force is okay; but actually carrying out force is not okay.

Noah: That depends on the context.

Adam Kokesh: So threatening force is okay if?

Noah: For example, if a crime were about to take place and I threatened force, and it prevented the crime from taking place, that would be a justification for the use of force.

Adam Kokesh: I’m an IRS agent and I’m threatening to put you in a cage if you don’t give me 30% of your income.  Is that a justified threat of force?

Noah: Yes

Adam Kokesh: That is a scary, anti-freedom, violent idea.

Noah: [leaves the conversation]

Similar Posts: