Yaron Brook and Doug Casey Debate The Need For Government–02-14-2012

Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institue and Doug Casey of Casey Research joined me today for a lively discussion about the need for government and why it always turns out wrong. Amazingly,…

You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. Justin Templer says:

    Yaron Brook and Doug Casey Debate The Need For Government
    Financial Survival Net – 02-14-2012

    #minarchism #anarchism #objectivism

    Yaron Brook and Doug Casey Debate The Need For Government–02-14-2012

  2. avneet12284 says:

    Gotta agree with Yaron although I also respect Doug Casey’s view on
    collectivism. Just not on anarchy.

  3. ih8ronpaulh8ers says:

    Why so Statist?

  4. David Peters says:

    Julian is ignorant not only of theory but of history. It was Iceland, nor
    Ireland. Rothbard wanted private police, but who will watch the watchers?

  5. Dropitlikeitshoppe says:

    Bullshit. There is a precedent in ancient ireland when there was no
    government and they were dealing pretty good with their problems, of course
    it was full of other horrible superstitions but still you seem to know
    nothing about private law,private defense or property rights, that might
    help ya out mises(.)org/books/chaostheory.pdf‎

  6. TheMobocracy says:

    How? How is going to the Judiciary, a branch of WalMart independent of the
    Legislative and Executive, anything like only being able to address a
    single branch of WalMart? You really need to brush up on your reading and
    thinking skills. You also ignore that there are clearly defined appeals
    processes in the WalMart Judiciary.

  7. Mateusz Przewloka says:

    The first rebuttal Yaron Brook makes is ridiculous on its face: If we can
    convince everyone of Randism and then government becomes all good and
    proper, then if we convince everyone of Communism, Communist government
    will become good and proper, and if we convince everyone of anarchism then
    no government will also be good and proper (and not a chaotic bloodbath)…

  8. LP101A says:

    I think Doug won the debate.

  9. selfrealizedexile says:

    bloody and be bloodied by another man. Isn’t that a market in force? Is
    picturing a gated neighborhood with security cameras and posts (and maybe
    even checkpoints, depending on consumer tastes) really THAT hard to
    imagine, Yaron? And this is ofc assuming the consumers think they even need
    those services provided to that degree. Crime could be so low in certain
    areas that it’s unprofitable to purchase those services. Always feels like
    minarchists are the slow ones of the Libertarian bunch.

  10. stevewilder1 says:

    @RealLiveDebates Understood and agree. I was basing my comment on Yaron’s
    hypothetical scenario in which the public understands political economics
    in the way that you and I do and create a system that does not encourage
    intervention. My point is that it might work for a given group of
    politicians for a given time period, but we cannot expect it to last in

  11. ttj1776 says:

    there was a video asking Rand what she thought of Palestinian property
    rights and Palestinian individual rights……it was hilariously pathetic.

  12. ScientificChampion says:

    this was a good debate and one the best i’ve seen I love both doug casey
    and yaron brook

  13. Viking Vista says:

    Markets are more creative than Brook understands. If people widely desire
    services like the government now monopolizes–e.g. security, peaceful
    dispute resolutions, ultimate arbiter–there is no mechanism for
    efficiently and effectively delivering those or any other services *that
    people want to agree to* than a competitive market system. There is nothing
    inherently superior about being able to violently suppress one’s peaceful
    competition that makes a person better at delivering those services.

  14. stevewilder1 says:

    What Yaron fails to get is that even if the public’s ideas were sound, good
    people may go into govt at any given point in time. But we cannot expect
    that election after election, good people will always be elected. At some
    point, a bad person pretending to be a good person will be elected. At that
    point, he can use the monopoly power of his gun to dispense bad ideas to
    the public. Govt works in a static model but not in a dynamic one.

  15. AlexanderEBott says:

    “standard distribution across space and time” -funny as hell

  16. John Manfreda says:

    The Vikings emerged from no central Government, anarchy doesn’t prevent
    tyranny by any stretch of the imagination

  17. selfrealizedexile says:

    Yaron is admitting how shallowly he understands “markets” by saying force
    can’t be a marketable service. It’s the same way some people try to
    distinguish “commercial” behavior and “non-commercial” behavior. Human
    action is human action; when economics becomes fully understood, you’re
    able to connect it all without having scattered categories that are
    governed by different rules (public vs private goods, etc.). Minarchists
    are an example of being scatterbrained. They think law and security

  18. pyroseed13 says:

    Defenses of anarchy, much like defenses of socialism, seem to collapse into
    the “No True Scotsman” trap.

  19. LP101A says:

    (It) has a roll that we might find in its mouth much like an apple in the
    Pig’s maw as it turns slowly on the Bar-B-Que.

  20. selfrealizedexile says:

    Yaron starts on foreign policy… …mother of God…

  21. bza069 says:

    i couldnt stand listening to yaron brook, b/c he sounded like Barbara
    Walter’s husband !

  22. ScientificChampion says:

    kerry lutz this one the best debates i’ve seen

  23. Viking Vista says:

    A monopoly cannot be guaranteed without employing violence against
    innocents. A monopoly cannot permit opting out or peaceful competition. A
    guaranteed monopoly is a coercive monopoly with is the effective violent
    suppression of competition. The governments of nation states are always
    coercive monopolies. The incentives of monopolies, as long understood in
    economic theory, are to become larger, less efficient, and abusive. Always.

  24. selfrealizedexile says:

    and the human events that occur within those categories are governed by a
    wholly unique logic, different from other human behavior, even though
    there’s nothing inherently special about standing post with a gun or giving
    your opinion on a disagreement (make no mention of the fact that private
    security and arbitration already exists). I mean, business is just
    business; there’s not much of a limit to consumer tastes. I could be an MMA
    fighter and people will exchange money and time to see me

  25. stevewilder1 says:

    This is one of the best things I have ever found on the internet. Thank you
    SO MUCH Kerry, Yaron and Doug. (I’m with Doug.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *