Are People Smart Enough for Ancap?

Added: 2026-05-14

[00:00:06]We got one more caller, so we'll move on and hopefully we'll hear from you again next week. Have a good one.

[00:00:10]>> Have a good one.

[00:00:13]>> All right, we're bringing up our next and final caller, DMM. Uh DMM, you are on the line. Uh we can hear you.

[00:00:21]>> Hi, how are you?

[00:00:22]>> We're doing well, thanks so much. You've got a couple of uh questions that you uh posed and they're all very interesting.

[00:00:28]So, how about we just hand the floor over to you and we'll go from there.

[00:00:32]>> All right. Um, so, um, self ownership, um, having it like like, um, describing it as a tutology like just as something that we should assume is true is not necessarily something I um, personally agree with. Even though I agree with the concept of self ownership, of course, I don't think it's necessarily implied or guaranteed. Um I think self I think ownership as a concept requires a um a um subject object relationship right and um I'm not sure exactly how you would define that in the self in the terms of self without um resorting to some metaphysical um inquiry or like some scientific scientific um you know um meandering.

[00:01:25]>> Sure. Well, I think um I I definitely want to hand over this to Zulu before we move on to the next question. Um neither I don't think Zulu, I definitely know for myself, it's not about uh an a toaological assumption. Now, uh what's happened in the past, I mentioned this on this uh episode and I've mentioned it on previous episodes too, >> is that when we're talking about rhetorical strategy, we want to help people understand our position better.

[00:01:52]It's often the case that the person that we're asking, especially if they're not familiar with ENCAP, um, they already assume that they own themselves. And if you know the person you're talking to, if they're making that assumption, >> um, regardless of whether or not I think that's philosophically valid, right? I'm talking to somebody and they're making that assumption. That's that's where they've decided they're coming from, then what I'm really trying to communicate to the audience and to other caps is understand that that assumption that that other person's making represents like a toolbox and all the tools that we have in that toolbox are completely up to the task of quickly bringing them to the conclusions that we want to we want to share with them. Um, but recognizing that these people in different positions than ours come prepackaged with the tools that are advantageous to us is not the same as to say that I think that that is um a sufficient or completely satisfactory um philosophical or just philosophy. Right?

[00:02:59]So, >> I totally understand that. I'm just I just I think that assuming it to be like assuming that it's true in every case and under every scenario is just is just a wrong presupposition and it shouldn't be something that um we we just like assume off the cusp like oh well if you think that you own yourself then like then you must own yourself. It like because the subject object relationship it takes a lot more than just like oh well I believe that like my brain is inside of this vessel and like I own the the flesh you know or something like that. [clears throat] >> Definitely. Oh I totally agree. I think that um I mean it sounds like we're not guess necessarily going into >> you know a specific derivation right now. We're sort of having a meta conversation about that. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think that I don't think it's true that everyone assumes that they own themselves. Um, and I don't want and I don't want anyone to think that I'm uh prescribing uh a rhetorical approach where you make that assumption. Um, it's just that because it's so common that if you're interested in having these discussions with people, it's worth being prepared to make the most of the landscape of the discussion. Um, but I I totally agree with you. There's no contest for me whatsoever that um it's not the case that everybody is already coming with that assumption and it's certainly not useful for us to to assume that they are >> right and yeah so um I mean that that was just my first bit um I guess I'd like to hear what uh Zulu has to say about it but um if he has something if not we can move on. I have another question.

[00:04:35]>> Yeah, sure. Um so the thing with uh self ownership I want to make it very clear like we're not talking in some like hoodoo voodoo like mystic sense here like that you know there's some soul which is owned or whatever >> right >> we're talking when we say ownership um we're talking about the right to exclude that's one definition of ownership there are multiple valid ones we'll go into that right now um so self ownership is then just the right to exclude exclude people from your body.

[00:05:07]So all we're saying when we say that people own themselves is that they have priority over what happens to their body. If you want to come in and use my body as a punching bag, well, it's up to me whether that happens. I have the right to prevent you from using my body as a punching bag to exclude that range of actions and any sort of actions that I don't want to happen. That's basically all we're saying.

[00:05:34]Okay. No, sure. And I agree with that.

[00:05:36]But um I'm I'm just like I'm wondering where that philosophically comes from.

[00:05:43]>> So in my view it comes directly from the non-aggression principle. Um it's about as clear as far as I'm concerned. So um the non-aggression principle says that >> the late comer person who um is initiating this conflict they are in the wrong. Okay. Okay, then let's consider the very simple case of, you know, Cruso and Friday on the island.

[00:06:06]>> Crusoe punches Friday.

[00:06:09]>> Clearly, there's a conflict there, right? There's a conflict over the Friday's face at the very least.

[00:06:14]>> Um, now, who has started this conflict?

[00:06:18]Who brought that conflict into being?

[00:06:21]This state of mutually exclusive actions with respect to Friday's fate.

[00:06:25]>> Well, Friday was just kind of trucking along already and doing his own thing. He was using his face as as he normally uses it for you know makeup on there or what have you. Um and then Crusoe made there be a conflict over that face and so [clears throat] it is the latecomer Crusoe who started this conflict and that's how we get to self ownership. It's a little more complicated how you get to external ownership but I don't think actually much more complicated. Some people over complicate it. I think it just comes straight from the NEP as well, right?

[00:06:58]>> And but it's just a lot more clear in the case of self ownership, >> right? I I would actually take the opposite position. I think self ownership is much more complicated than um ownership of of exterior things because um like like the exterior things I think it's much more clearly from the NAP, but um because like you can't like like obviously you wouldn't be able to own people, but you can't own things. So like subject object relationship, that's where ownership comes from. you know you have like a subject yourself object a thing I own thing you know it's mine there you go you know um I helped I produced it I made it I bought it whatever I like I I had done the required work to attain thing it is mine now but but self ownership comes from like the um the very birth of the person like from the very start of them so if you assume that it's because of like this first comer principle um and absolutely No um no uh sarcasm meant by this or anything, but like I'm like like not not sarcas I'm trying to think the right the irony I meant or whatever it is. Um but um the um the the first per the first people to conceive of you to the first the I mean your dad and your mom would be the first you know and so um first comers I would suppose. So they so they would technically own you, right? And under this NAP under this like under this definition of the NAP like that in in Rand technically espouses, right? Like they would be the ones who created you.

[00:08:34]>> So as far as in Randrand espouses perhaps because she does agree with the labor theory property. Um but I would reject the labor theory property. I want to be clear. It's not that you created a thing >> that that is why you own that thing.

[00:08:47]It's like you were the first comer to that thing other or moreover other people are late comers that they to interact with you would have to initiate conflicts in some way if if you're not to it.

[00:08:59]>> So you would have to accept >> the instant that you come into being.

[00:09:04]>> It's not like there is a soul who managed to grab onto that zygote first.

[00:09:09]I'm not saying that. it's that when the the sperm and the egg met and you know it got fertilized and everything um I'm not an expert on all the specifics there of course not biologist you know in vague terms when the baby was created then there is that baby there okay so that baby is that baby >> so that baby is allowed to exclude people from its own body why if anybody came along and met this baby. Um, even if even if other people created that baby, if they came along and tried to punch that baby, well, that's going to contradict what the baby wants to happen, >> right?

[00:09:55]>> And so, um, I suppose like so, so, so life would be an end in itself basically, but at the moment of conception is what you're saying. like it would just be like >> I'm not sure how I would describe it in those terms, but as far as I understand them, I think we're getting at the same thing.

[00:10:16]>> Okay. Um and I guess my second question would be how um and and um since I'm moving on to a different topic, like obviously the floor is open for like the floor was open for both of you, but I'm just like I'm just like wanted to be clear that like cuz I requested specifically Zulu earlier. So um cuz I had already we had already talked right. So um yeah but um how like when when um an anarchco capitalism when theory and practice meets um meets reality meets uh pragmatism meets um like uh the real world. How do you see that sort of thing coming about without some sort of violent revolution? because I've run um I've I used to be an ancap um and I'm so I'm like you know like I I think I think actually we've um me and I I'll show my face. I know I know I know like um I know you that you you won't like you know you don't share it or anything.

[00:11:14]You're you're perfectly allowed to but um we've met before at like uh what was it ycon or something some some sort of me and Zulu I think actually. though if you recognize me.

[00:11:28]>> Well, I can't actually see you, so I don't know. You'd have to guess in the Discord.

[00:11:33]>> Sorry about that.

[00:11:34]>> Oh, okay. No, it's it's on um it's on Streamyard. I don't know.

[00:11:37]>> I can't see because I'm not the host. I can't see people stage.

[00:11:41]>> Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. Well, um hopefully the host uh took a um picture screenshot.

[00:11:49]>> Sure, sure. Sure. Um whatever it is. Um but yeah um the whole the whole um the whole idea behind um anarcho capitalism seems to be boggled down when it meets reality to me by the fact that people first of all people are it's like a like a pyramid effect where you have different levels of things that that are blocking um blocking us from the reality of having an anarcho capitalist paradise or utopia or whatever. or whatever have you. Um but um the first one seems to be that people are very um innately a lot of people seem to be at this point stupid like not inate innately that's the wrong word but like the Frankfurt school and all this stuff and up to this um up to this point in history people are very generally stupid. Um not not smart enough. That's that's a better way of putting it. Not smart enough for ancap to come about. Yeah, that's right.

[00:12:50]Um and then um then the second thing I would say is that people are um too manipulative. Not necessarily evil because that's another one but people are too manipulative and um game the system to um to you know benefit themselves. Hold on sorry I have to move around.

[00:13:13]Um and then um the third thing and it's not necessarily a bad thing that people are always manipulative but like it can be is all I'm saying and people usually don't don't um do it in the right way is what is like don't don't do it in uh socially ecological way you know whatever it is but um and then the third thing that comes in the way is um people are not necessarily good they're evil there's a lot of evil out Okay. So, it's like a like like like and then you get less of them as you go up because it's the amount of stupidity is just so exponentially large that um and then um and then and then the fourth thing I would say is that there's not enough um greatness or goodness that um that is spread throughout society for for something to just to just organically take place like this. And so how how do you contend with these um with these um poor um blockages towards um towards anarchical capitalism? How how would you do that without um sparking some sort of violent revolution?

[00:14:27]>> Do you think Zulu it's better if we each take a crack at all four or if we uh each take a crack at one at a time?

[00:14:35]>> Um perhaps one at a time. I was going to give like just a general like thrusting argument and then I suppose we could come in and dissect them each individually if you want.

[00:14:46]>> That'd be great. That'd be great.

[00:14:48]>> So yeah, my my general thrust which seems to apply to at least multiple of these um is that well yeah we're not going to have an anarchal capitalist society unless people are convinced of anarchical capitalism. Some critical mass people are convinced. Now this is true of every sort of society. Now this is you know the people being too manipulative, the people being you know stupid or people being evil so on so forth like all of this kind of falls under the banner of yeah indeed if people are not anarcho capitalists then we don't get an anarcoist society but if people if some critical mass is convinced of anarchco capitalism then there just simply will become an anarcoist society. there is no nobody on earth who could possibly stop it from happening. Um just as nobody's been able to prevent revolution from happening ever. Now it doesn't necessarily have to be a violent revolution. It might be, it might not be. Uh all I'm saying is that if there is this critical mass of people who are convinced of our philosophy, >> then that philosophy will be existentially realized. Um because fundamentally that society what society you get is a result of whatever the philosophy of the day is. The philosophy of the day is more fundamental.

[00:16:12]Yeah, I love that answer uh Zulu. I think that it's uh one of the uh greatest forces for optimism in the movement to sort of think about it in that way. And I think that's exactly um the right way to to look at it. I think it kind of reminds me of how prior to the establishment of any of the uh the communist states that existed um if you had have pitched those ideas to the people it would have had probably a similar reaction at times say you really think you're going to be able to do all these radical things that are so different from the way things are currently done and sure enough with the a sufficient vanguard of uh thought leaders and the uh a shift in the philosophy of the day look, you know, they got the result. Maybe perhaps after the fact, most of them wish that they hadn't, but uh they certainly did either way. And I think we're in the same same sort of boat.

[00:17:05]>> No, I No, and I agree with that. I'm just saying like would we really want to be in the same boat as them? Like we would want this idea to cook. We would want this idea to not be made with the adults, but with the with the children and the adults at the same time. We want this to grow and ruminate in society.

[00:17:22]And that would take more than my lifetime, more than my kids' lifetime, and probably more than my grandkids lifetime given the current state of things as they are right now.

[00:17:31]>> Well, I certainly think that uh the emergence of the Soviet Union, for example, happened much quicker than over several lifetimes. And if we want if we want to integrate, >> you know, if you want things to happen like educating children and cultivating a culture of liberty and um you know, praxiological understanding and all those kinds of things, then wouldn't the fastest way to start having like you said the children being involved too uh wouldn't the fastest way to do that would be to get the society and then that would be the environment that would bring that about? I I really don't think so because that's how you get you had um you had like um in in in I mean like for instance in Nazism it happened probably the fastest of any ideology it grew really fast it died really fast right um about like 15 years of like you know it being alive um it grew up it blew up in about like like let's just say five years it was less than that I think personally but um that there was Nazi youth and there they were learning and stuff and like I don't I don't think that's something to emulate personally.

[00:18:40][clears throat] I mean like I don't know >> clear in emulating in a libertarian way would be to instruct the youth of what I believe to be true.

[00:18:49]>> Right. It's not saying rat on your parents to get them in the goolag or anything.

[00:18:53]>> Right. Right.

[00:18:54]>> It's saying simp simply believe that it's not appropriate >> to go about and initiating conflict with people. That's not an appropriate way to act. you know, don't don't hurt people, don't steal people. As much as I like to clown, I think I think largely people already agree with that, though.

[00:19:10]>> You know, that's that's I think what I'm doing. I think I'm appealing to a very um young audience, relatively speaking.

[00:19:17]Like, you know, my audience is still in like the the 20 to 30 range, but relatively speaking, as far as political movements are going, that's uh that's pretty young compared to some of my um compatriots.

[00:19:30]>> Totally. I I and I I get that. I'm just saying that when you get to critical mass, you wouldn't want it to happen too early and too soon or too too quickly cuz in some there was communist youth and they they they they did like turn against their neighbors. They turned against their friends and they said you're not living by my principles and therefore I don't agree with you. And when you when you do instruct children, I think you have to be very careful about it and you can't just apply broad principles with uh with with blunt strokes.

[00:20:07]>> Well, that's exactly what you got to do.

[00:20:09]Like uh for us to for them like again what it looks like for communists to say you're not living by my principles um to their neighbors is that they drag their neighbors out onto the street and beat them to death. That's what it looks like, right? For us, it looks like I'm not going to engage with you. I'm not going to give you my sanction. I'm not going to accept your like, you know, arbitrary rules. Like that's what it looks like, which is a lot more, you know, peaceful than the communist comparison is.

[00:20:41]>> Yeah. I'd like to point out as well that we can't um at least we shouldn't start from the assumption that all ideologies are simply on equal footing here. So that one ideologyy's failures either condemn its its all of its ideological neighbors or also to just ideology in general. But the the fact of the matter is um from a historical point of view if we look at the Nazis I think you mentioned already like uh the Third Reich.

[00:21:07]>> Yeah.

[00:21:07]>> Well, what what contributed to their downfall, right? They had a philosophy that was naturally oriented towards aggression and this brought them into conflict with their neighbors and that is one of the major factors that that brought them down. This is this is not uh uh something that's present in what we're advocating for. So it can't automatically be assumed that if we were to pursue um you know a sudden change that this would be automatically brought down because we can see just from looking at the face value of what each of these ideologies prescribes that we're not uh we we do not have the same problems uh fundamentally that they do.

[00:21:51]>> Okay. Um yeah, I I I just I wanted to point like the first thing I'd like to um really uh say is that I don't I don't think that all ideologies are equivalent and you know I mean like clearly right I used to be anap I'm a men anarco capitalist now um I I just don't see it in my lifetime and I think I should advocate for things that I can like actually achieve right I'm a fremanite um sort of um economically and maybe even politically. Um, so I I I guess I what I what I will say is I do think all people are um somewhat equivalent. Not not exactly equivalent obviously, but somewhat equivalent. And um I I think that's mostly agreeable.

[00:22:39]And so um the the these are these are these are just ideologies. They're empty buildings. They're empty ideas that are filled in with people with with um thoughts with with with real actionable goings about, you know, doings and and like actions, right? You as as the Austrian school sort of says, man acts, right? It takes a man to act. You have to have someone who is out there functionally pushing the market. So I I and another like and >> I just want I want to ask something here because I want to get Zulu's input on whether or not this what I'm about to say is is even valid. But >> um so what we're doing is we're making a moral prescription, right? We're not we're not saying here's a bunch of institutions and we our goal is to bring about these specific institutions. We're really starting from a moral prescription. We're saying that one should not aggress. And so there's a moral prescription and what I'm hearing from you is that you can't conceive of um a a way in which that can happen inside of your lifetime. So I want to say if I wanted to be real debate bro the first two things that come to mind is um that nothing about it being achievable in your lifetime is is necessary to satis we don't need to satisfy that criteria. That's not a that's not a logical thing. That's just you're saying I would just prefer to win the lottery. It was, you know, and the other thing is >> um I had two of them and then I lost them because I have such a goldfish memory. But but the thing that I think is more interesting is like we already agree, for example, that murder is wrong. So murder is exactly comparable to the non-aggression pack in that it's it's a it's a prescriptive statement.

[00:24:24]We're saying you shouldn't aggress, you shouldn't murder. But right now in our society, we have a a society that's absolutely depending on where you go, murder is rampant in some areas. Um certainly wherever you are, the one thing that's incontrovertible is that murder is far from having been eradicated. So instead of Zulu and I saying you should [clears throat] not murder, should we think to ourselves or does it even make sense for us to think to ourselves, well I've noticed that I'm I'm not I'm not aware of a plan that would allow me to eradicate murder within my lifetime. So I should really stop saying murder is wrong. I should I should back it up to murder is wrong sometimes. And then that way I might be able to conceive of a goal that I can get in this life.

[00:25:06]>> Well, um I I would I would probably I I I don't think like we're we're not arguing about like what people consider as principles. We're argue like we're arguing about how those principles become into actionable ideas and how they you know like like like bring their thrust into reality, you know? So like I I just to to to the idea that like that that murder is wrong. Um I I like I of course I agree and of course like if I was in a place that that murders happen, I would I would probably say well we should kill the people who are murdering people. I would probably say murder isn't wrong. We should we should like I I wouldn't I wouldn't like I would say like there's only one way to stop this permanently and it's to set an example and finish it. And so like I I don't understand like if if like like we don't I mean I'm not sure like whether we disagree but like if we do I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[00:26:06]>> So I mean are you operating on the premise that if you were to go out and punish the murderers >> Yes.

[00:26:11]>> and kill them in return that that would itself be murder.

[00:26:15]>> No, I'm not operating under um uh I mean it depends on how you do it of course.

[00:26:20]>> So then the way to deal with murder is indeed to kill off the murderers.

[00:26:24]to do that you have to have as premise that murder is wrong. If you don't know if murder is wrong as a premise, well then why the hell are you punching?

[00:26:33]People are doing nothing wrong, right?

[00:26:35]>> It's not widely accepted. Actually, that's a very contested point. And I know because of you, everyone's taken like some form of like English 101, English 2011 or something, right? And so, um, you have to write a paper at some point about like either the death penalty or some other number of topics.

[00:26:50]And it's actually a widely contested point that like you should kill those who murder. Um, it's a widely contested point. Most people disagree with that side for now.

[00:26:59]>> If you're going to punish murderers in some way, um your your way was go out and kill the murderers. But let's put that aside.

[00:27:07]>> You're going to have to have as a prerequisite premise that murder isn't wrong, right? That's kind of Gazar's point is that if you don't have the premise that murder is wrong, how are you ever going to deal with murder? If you're just like, "Oh, well, I don't like it when they murder Jewish people and let's stop that." Or, "I don't like it when they murder old ladies who are walking home from work, you know?" Yeah.

[00:27:32]If you just kind of chip away at it like that, well, it's like, well, what's the fundamental principle here, man? You know, don't you don't you think in principles?

[00:27:39]>> Yeah. No, I I do. Of course I do. But I I I I I think in in statistical realities as well and I think of in in in ways that like who who so so let me go on sort of a like a minor tangent here and I'll say how do you enforce that in an anarcho capitalist society like suppose suppose you have your anarcho capitalist state right you have an capistan how do you enforce that murders murder doesn't happen do you just say oh well we have the nap as a law and if you don't do the nap then you Like is it an eye for eye? Is it Hammurabi? Like who who is enforcing it also?

[00:28:16]>> I mean like just >> so I mean if somebody was going around murdering people >> in Capistan, >> I would absolutely I would absolutely be willing to fund some sort of a Dexter Morgan to go out there and kill those people. I would be Dexter Morgan would be the greatest hero in an capitalism stand. Right. He he' be a great man. Um, right. He what going out killing off the murderers >> either I kill them off >> or for in general just send them out to the frontiers. I don't want to deal with them. Send them out to the frontiers and either they're going to work out how to be productive individuals out there, civilized individuals, and then civilization creep forward because of that >> or they die and I don't particularly care about that. Okay. Either they work out how to live properly or they're going to starve to death and it's not my problem. I'm not going to let them be a leech on my life. Anyway, >> leopard like a leopard colony is what you're saying.

[00:29:15]>> Not even a leopard colony because a leopard colony was you've got to go out there and maintain it and make sure everything's all and everything. I'm saying no. Get in the space pod. We're sending out to Alpha Centtory. Good luck.

[00:29:27]>> Yeah. Gotcha.

[00:29:28]>> And you're paying for the space pod?

[00:29:30][laughter] Yeah, I'd be I'd be I'd be I'd be willing to [ __ ] pay to get these people off my goddamn property.

[00:29:37]>> I mean, you pay for the bullet kill them with a bullet point. You know, here's here's a framing I'd like to share with you that I think really is it has a lot of potential to help clarify this question. So, the question is and and the way that you framed it is really popular. A lot of people frame it the way you framed it, and it's who enforces X, who enforces the non-aggression principle, who enforces the rule not to murder people, >> right?

[00:30:05]>> But you're you're asking that question about the like what I call like the voluntary society, although I wish I had a better label for it, but like here's a society that's adhering to the NAP. So, what we got to remember is if a society is a set of individuals, and if they're adhering to the NAP and someone's going around murdering people, well, he's not.

[00:30:24]So the question is really, you know, it there's a sort of an essence to where it's like it's the NAP followers versus some outsider. Um, but the framing that I really want to give that I think is better is how does a set of individuals who are all committed to adhering to the NAP solve this problem? And if you frame it that way, I found that it's just a lot easier and more intuitive to sort of come up with your own answers. So, let's say >> me and you and Zulu >> are living in a little village together and it's just the three of us and we become aware of a fourth person who's a murderer.

[00:31:05]>> And the question is, okay, the only rules are this. Me and you and Zulu have come up with we are agreeing to follow the NAP together. That's the only constraint on the hypothetical. So, what is the NAP? We don't initiate conflict.

[00:31:21]Um, can we, the three of us, solve this problem that we're now aware of of a fourth person who's a murderer? And I have to say, now I'm not going to maybe I'm not going to bore everyone to death with an infinite amount of answers to this, but I have found that that framing makes it so obvious that there there's like an almost unlimited amount of solutions that should just jump right out um of the question at you. Sure.

[00:31:48]Um and I I agree with that. Um, but the the whole thing the like the the idea that I want to go back to maybe to my to my initial idea because like we're assuming okay like if we have a and if we have it in capistan if everything is hunky dory, right? Then then it'll be hunky dory and it's like okay that's like that that's its own you know we're we're we're thinking we have our mind like I have I have my head in the clouds. I don't know about you, but like it's it's nice. It's nice to think about that. It's great, right?

[00:32:26]Um I just um with with that all of with so many presuppositions, right? Um where it's like it's already so far into the whatever future we're we have and we're we're we're we're all great. But once we try to like you you said something interesting I think earlier that like the fastest way to Anapistan would be the best way. So even on top of like thousands of dead bodies, even on top of like even on a river of blood like like if like no matter like like what is the fastest way to end Capistan require like if you enforce it if you say like this is my property, right? And and then people like say well no it isn't. Are you allowed to go um you know and and do what you need to with your band or army of however what have you and and destroy as much property and lives as humanly possible to uphold your principles?

[00:33:30]>> Might I just jump in for a moment?

[00:33:32]>> Sure.

[00:33:33]>> Um we're not saying anything in particular about what the fastest way to encaps um is or anything of the sort.

[00:33:41]um we're saying the most fundamental step is to convince people of anarchco capitalism and then whatever happens happens. Now certainly you don't bring about anarco capitalism by not believing in anarco capitalism and going out and destroying property.

[00:33:57]>> That's definitely not how because then you're violating the fundamental step, >> right?

[00:34:00]>> The prerequisite of getting to a narco capitalism is that you that people accept a narcoism. So if you're going out and spreading anti- adapt capitalism, >> then you're you're moving in the opposite direction there, >> right? So at what point do you take action when people start encroaching on you and your children and and your ilk and your friends and family all that stuff at what point do you start to take action?

[00:34:26]>> So it would be very context dependent, you know, what specifically is the encroachment, how far they encroaching, you know, so on and so forth. what what means are available to you. Now, if if you've got the means available to you, what we're saying is perfectly within your rights to defend your property and other people's property, the property of your family, for instance, it's perfectly within your rights to use whatever means is necessary to defend that. Mhm.

[00:34:53]>> So at some point you have to say like so you would have you would say that like oh the US is United States is becoming too communist or too um like like um like >> clarify we're not going to make any sicious language here.

[00:35:12]>> I'm not trying I'm not trying to I just want to guarantee that I'm not trying to do anything like that. I'm I'm just trying to enjoy a debate or something like so let's say >> I get it just we're based on YouTube like I get I get >> so so um so the the the you the the um so imagination land which you live in is becoming more radically um communist or Marxist Leninist or something right some sort of thing that is is tearing into its um metaphysics and it's schooling everything everything in the society slowly slowly it's churning its way towards like some some some sort of communist ideology are at what point do you have a right to say I don't want this like do do you have a right to say I am enforcing my national identity of like capitalism at the very least. Not even anarcho capitalism, just capitalism.

[00:36:22]>> Okay. So, yeah, you're like Cassie and Andor and the Galactic Empire start >> encroach more upon you.

[00:36:31]>> Um, well, the non-aggression principle states that >> he has the right to reject them the second they encroach upon his property.

[00:36:40]He has the right to exclude them from his property.

[00:36:43]>> Sure. So, so, so like if there's like some primitivist or um communist Marxist Leninist, some sort of force that he doesn't personally agree with. So, like if >> if if he doesn't personally agree with them, it's because he has property rights.

[00:36:58]It's not just, well, if anybody doesn't agree with anybody else, then they're allowed to just do >> Right. Right. Right. No, I totally I totally understand. I'm sorry. I'm just I'm Yeah. Um I I understand. I'm just I'm just I'm just a little tired from the day.

[00:37:13]have been um I've had quite a day. So >> um but anyway um so the idea is that like once they start encroaching on your property and trying to enforce their ideas onto you then that that is that is beyond beyond their control and they should not have that right is what you're saying. It's not that it's beyond their because people definitely can control the property of others.

[00:37:44]>> No, of course. Yeah. Beyond their philosophical second that the Galactic Empire comes in and they start aggressing against people, that's when they're in the wrong and people they're aggressing against have the right to exclude them from that aggression from that aggressive action in particular.

[00:38:02]>> Right. So, okay. I mean, I guess that's that's most of my questions. I mean, I just Because um like and then what is what is the fastest most peaceful way I think my final what is the fastest most peaceful way do that you think I have my own answer but that you think um we could achieve anarchical capitalism within 200 years let's say let's give it a long time span 200 years >> if every anarco capitalist starts implementing the exact strategy that I'm implementing um we could get there within century.

[00:38:40]>> Okay.

[00:38:43]>> I will say also I I think I might remember you. Were you um the guy who was at the um the the lunch table with us?

[00:38:51]>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yes.

[00:38:52]>> Yes. I remember you from um from your positions. Um so send a picture into the Discord as well so I remember.

[00:38:59]>> Sure. Absolutely.

[00:39:01]>> Specifically if I'm right.

[00:39:03]>> Yeah. I was I was there with um you and I met Cyus. We talked a little bit.

[00:39:10]>> Whole bunch of folks.

[00:39:11]>> Whole bunch of folks. Yeah.

[00:39:14]>> A lot of people that that um liked him.

[00:39:16]I had never heard of him before, but yeah. Invited me and everything. We we got to know each other.

[00:39:21]>> Yeah.

[00:39:22]>> Good. Yeah. Well, he's he's around in the Discord server community, so he's >> um if I could just leave a note here, I'd like to put into the video for posterity on the on the topic. Um, just for the the benefit of the audience when it comes to framing, I think another another thing that's really sort of fraught is the question like are you allowed? And that's another uh way that questions are framed so commonly especially when you're just talking to um like in your case minarchists or just people who aren't as familiar with ENAPS like are you allowed to do this? Are you allowed to do that? And the reason that I I really advise against exploring language, like asking questions about what you're allowed to do, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with them.

[00:40:02]But what what happens for most people is that >> allowed for many people is an appeal to some sort of authority that has to step in and say, "You're not allowed to do that." Um, for us, that is actually still the case, but it's an appeal to a specific prescription. It's it's the non-aggression principle itself. So, I think it's it's it's clearer language to say it's not about what you're allowed to do. It's about is it just an objective fact that this lines up with um non-aggression or not. And if it doesn't line up with it, it's not about we need to have some sort of institution and authority so we can go to them and say, "Hey, this is not lining up." It's once it's not uh consistent with the non-aggression principle any longer.

[00:40:46]Then it goes back to that other question I asked you which is can you think of any ways that a set of individuals who are adhering to the non-aggressive principle can solve this problem and the problem is here's this person who's doing something that's aggressive sometimes it's murder like we talked about earlier sometimes it's fraud >> um sometimes it's just somebody who's like a town drunk and is prone to you know knocking people's mailboxes over by accident but whatever the case may be I think that's that's the framing that can ask the exact same question without accidentally inviting all of this baggage that's sort of harmful for clarity on the topic of non-aggress >> and uh I I'm only saying that not necessarily as a correction in any way but just I think it's helpful to think about it that way it makes it easier for people to talk about this stuff.

[00:41:33]>> Totally understand. Yeah. Gotcha. I think um Zulie wanted to say something as well.

[00:41:40]>> If I did I don't recall what it was.

[00:41:42]>> Oh, okay. Sorry. Um I just I remember you you were speaking. Never mind. Um yeah. No, I mean I think I had all my answer all my questions answered. Um I I would love to see it within 100 years.

[00:41:55]Um I I won't live to see it, but I would love to see it grow towards that within a 100 years. Um really I would and um I just I don't really like consider that um to be fully I I I would love to see it within 250 years even. Um but I just don't think I don't think that um the prescription is necessarily there in the in in the cards right now.

[00:42:26]>> Well, I guess we're going to find out.

[00:42:28]>> I hope so.

[00:42:30]Okay. Well, you said that that was all of your questions. So, do you think that that we've uh adequately addressed everything that you uh brought to us today?

[00:42:38]>> I believe so. Yeah.

[00:42:40]>> Super. All right. Well, we're super glad to hear that. That's going to be our last call for today. So, I guess we're going to head into our outro now. Uh thanks so so much for reaching out and hopefully uh we can hear from you again in another show, another episode.

[00:42:52]>> Absolutely. I would love to.

[00:42:54]>> All right. Thanks so much. That was DMM uh call number four for episode number eight. So, um, we're going to go