link to original reddit post by /u/tocano
I finally got around to watching Lex Fridman's interview with Michael Malice and Yaron Brook. Among many topics, they also discuss Anarchism (2:39:06) with Michael an advocate and Yaron a critic.
Of the many points made on both sides, I think two that Yaron made really struck me as wildly incorrect.
- Paraphrasing Yaron: "Security is not a service unless it is provided in the context of a single authority^+ legal system." (Starting around 3:16:18)
I have issues with this claim. From international trade now to middle ages; from western US wagon trains going all the way back to pre-national merchants, having security details accompany a caravan to protect goods and people as they travel through "wild" areas where no legal authority holds sway is likely older than antiquity. Security as a service requires no existing legal framework beyond the agreement of the two parties involved. If a handful of guys hired by a drug runner to protect a shipment choose to abandon their charge and flee from an attack, you think that the drug runner is taking them to court for breach of contract?!
^+ He has mentioned several times earlier that only single authority legal systems are valid. Others, he claims, descend into chaos and ultimately authoritarianism.
- "Law is the system that allows markets to happen. ... Law is the context in which markets arise. ... It [law] is the context that allows markets to be created." (3:17:07)
No. Just no. Where there is supply and demand, markets happen, not just in the absence of law, but often in direct contradiction to it (black markets). This seems nonsensical to me. I'm honestly surprised that Michael didn't immediately push back on this.
These seem to be his fundamental problems with anarchism and I find them extremely poor arguments.
If someone thinks I misunderstood or am misrepresenting his views, please let me know. I don't think Yaron is unintelligent, but I think his arguments here are not just weak, but completely incorrect.
I don't claim to be an anarchist. But I find Michael's arguments much more convincing here. He is describing aspects of anarchism that already exist and systems that reflect anarchistic situations already in use and simply says, we need to expand these to more and more of society. Yaron, on the other hand, seems to be making an argument similar to what communists do: lamenting the current system, but dismissing all evidence of the flaws in his own solution by simply saying "They didn't do it right.". He seems to be essentially saying ~Govt is the ONLY possible way to have a civil society... but only if it's good govt, structured and governed as I say it should be." I find that to be a woefully lacking argument - both when communists use it and when Yaron uses it.