I am having difficulty understanding how we can remove the concept of the State from a society which practices the concept of property ownership. Aren’t States, at least in the traditional sense of monarchs and limited republics, nothing more than one or a group of human property owners collectivizing their efforts to defend property from natural forces?

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at:

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at:

Amazon US Affiliate Link:
Amazon Canada Affiliate Link:
Amazon UK Affiliate Link:

Tags : anarchismanarchyatheismatheistcapitali...classical liberalismeconomicsfamilyfreedomaingodgovernmenthistorylibertarianphilosophystate

The author admin


  1. The concept of rule of law developed under aristocracies and monarchies. If you could appeal to an aristocrat for a judgement, or a supreme aristocrat a king, during a dispute this meant that those under them knew they were getting a judge who could always be appealed to and was releived by the notion that someone was above the dispute to judge independently. So no matter how wronged and poor someone got, the noble or king could make a favorable judgement based on law, tradition, and truth. Democracies and everyone supposedly under the law, which is really dominated by money and an every expanding legal fiat, means that judgements will be arbitrary and based on money.

  2. How much economic value can be derived from land without a public easement to access it? And then what about law courts, and some representative body to make these laws? The proper role of the state is to provide reliable infrastructure, without which creating and trading things of value are severely limited. A minimally necessary function of providing public goods over a large territory is the ideal form of a state.

  3. You know, once I finally came to the conclusion that the initiation of force was wrong, it was like the clouds parted and I could actually see everything for the way it IS, instead of the way the State and the powers-that-be want me to see it. My parents taught me that the initiation of force was wrong before I went to kindergarten (don't hit, don't steal, don't bully, etc.), but they never taught me to rationally apply that to the State. It took me over 30 years to completely understand that the State was not the protector of the people and property and it required me to peel back a lot of layers of propaganda to do it, but I CAN see clearly now. It's truly astonishing what the State gets people to accept during that 15,000 hours of indoctrination…it's truly astonishing what I accepted as the truth without a moment's consideration.

  4. My maternal grandfather was a farmer.  When it was time to cut corn, the corn of every farmer in the area was cut on a different day and everybody from all those farms came to each farm on each day and helped.  Home-made saffron cake and tea were provided by each of the farmer's wives on their day.  I remember the tail end of this, just as combine harvesters were coming in, don't think it still happens, more machines now.

  5. I just recently starting listening to your show and thoughts, sorry about the cancer battle that is tough i am glad you got through it.  One thing about that is the money in cancer, research, meds, doctors etc. basically Capitalism.  I wonder why you did not go with a natural medicine.  One of these new ways is liquid cannabis.  Due to Colorado's profits from growing this plant and this industry.  I would be very curious to hear your thoughts on any of this.  I personally think that Colorado is paving the way for a new green America, from growing products which is always a good thing, and small local business.

  6. How can land ownership not be fundamental to property rights? Wouldn't a house that imparts value and is owned imply that the land it occupies also has value and can be owned? An empty parcel of land holds potential value in terms of what can be developed on it.

    Consider an empty field – if unowned, then one person can think "Farming!" and set about planting some seeds. The next day, someone else thinks "Housing!" and digs it all up in order to start setting foundations. Add in any other number of potential uses – most of them incompatible. If the land is unowned, then whose property right prevails?

  7. Around the 25 minute mark is when I think Stef really strikes the root! The whole idea of government will unravel when the majority of people finally give up their belief that authority holds any legitimacy. Anyone who's watched this video should check out Larken Rose on youtube and his book The Most Dangerous Superstition.

  8. Dog eat a dog is image about how bad is capitalism!
    Human eat human, dog eat a dog………………………………….

  9. The closer any "ism" gravitates toward it's inevitable extreme the more predatory, unfair and unhealthy it becomes. Until humanity matures enough to cope, balance and sustain it's "isms" and human psychoses, it will continue to devolve and disintegrate.

  10. Great ideas as always but take a look at this – reorganizing for the era of social capitalism.  Imagine factors of production shifted from Land, labor, and Capital to Social, Creative, and Intellectual. Curiosumé is an analog to digital converter for knowledge assets:  A whole different take on property rights.

  11. Everyone is so hung up on land for crop growth… A 30 floor building can grow enough vegetable, fruit, herbs and possibly fish for 5-10,000 people. Aquaponics can be scaled right up and isn't limited to the amount we can reclaim from the sea again. It seems so archaic compared to the environment we can create.

    I think it would be pretty cool if the free market could produce a human being that could that run leasing project of that magnitude keeping 7 billion people happy.

  12. In terms of the ancient Greeks. Warrior / Farmers. I think the proper term was Hoplites, typically armed with shield and spear. Citizenry who's responsibility to the state meant military service if called upon during war, essentially. They would be farmers or artisans who could afford the armour and weapons, and would recieve training. You could think of them as an organised militia with some kind of contract with the state.

  13. I'm somewhat skeptical of the non-chaotic Wild West. It's plausible, but I'd like some proof regarding the true nature of the Wild West. It sound like it would be a good argument, but I need some facts to back it up.

  14. Your saying the land is only a prerequisite for what you would do with it. But who decides that? I mean some land is clearly more valuable than other land. Like if I beat you to Niagara Falls and say I want to build a taco stand, but someone else comes and wants to build a hotel overlooking the falls later, and which would be far more profitable – they don't have the opportunity to do so because your taco stand is already there. What the hell are we talking about? I mean I can ask to buy you out of your taco stand, but you would have benefitted by being 1st, & why & how would it play out? Of course it is primarily about the land.

  15. Do you not care about the reasons why someone is more productive? Especially if that farmer using chemicals all over the place to kill insects and to be more productive?? You and your own children probably already eat those poisons, chemicals in your body, only because the farmer who want to produce more got more lands. He doesn't care about feeding people, he cares about profit and that evil money based on nothing real. That lack of compassion is not far away from all those psychopath disorders, while the honest farmer try to live and produce less but nice organic food without those chemicals. Well, you probably just don't understand that you already have plastics and chemicals in your body right now. Oh please, don't tell us you wash them with water, because even if you did that, those chemicals are still in and on fruits/vegetables. All the lands, water, the air, it's not about possession even if you believe otherwise. It's all about the survival our the entire specie, not your survival specifically, not your family specifically, but most likely the survival of all humans beings and the future of our specie. Face reality, since you did speak to Peter Joseph, we all know who you really are. Your are too limited to grasp something too sophisticated for you. It's beyond your intellectual limitation. I have see that when you did interrupted Peter Joseph all the time, and you are defending yourself because it was a debate. That argument is out the window, you will simply never admit that Peter got more intellectual power beyond what you are capable to understand. Interrupting someone all the time is not a sign of intelligence or maturity, not a sign of respect and certainly not a sign of high intellectual capacity.

  16. The argument starting around 5:15 seems to fail.

    It isn't clear to me how to argue that one ought to see taxation as an element of the definition of property rights per se or as something separate from property rights without succumbing to arbitrariness. It is feasible one could include in one's definition that property is only to be attained legally, and thus in accordance with taxation laws, meaning that property is only property once any transactions involved have been properly taxed. But I am prepared to assume, for the purpose of discussion, that taxation is to be regarded as a violation of property rights.

    The suggestion that the caller made, that the state be considered the protector of property rights makes sense despite the state imposing taxation in a number of different ways. It is, for instance, feasible that a general, in furthering the mission of "protecting his troops" would find himself having to make the regrettable decision of sacrificing some of his men to save the vast majority of them. He can sensibly be considered to be protecting the men while withholding protection from a subset of the men. Other counter-examples seem to preclude any interpretation of the argument along the lines of "that which does harm to X in any degree cannot be said to protect X" – in medicine people often undergo treatment that is slightly harmful to our health in order to protect themselves against a greater harm, the treatment could surely still be said to be a measure protective of their overall health?

    More specifically to the issue, a consequentialist could simply respond that the question was begged against consequentialism. Of course the consequences of taxation could feasibly be a greater level of protection than the consequences of no taxation, assuming the state performing the taxation used the raised funds to address significant concerns, and did so effectively. So the notion that taxation per se constitutes a greater violation of property rights than those violations that would have occurred were it not for taxation still requires an argument on this interpretation.

    It might be argued along the lines of catholic objections to abortion, that the difference in power between the property rights violator and the violated is so great that we are morally compelled somehow to seek to protect and defend the weaker, and that for this reason taxation can never be moral. But the same mechanic is true of more or less any property rights violation, and I am not sure how an objective scale of atrocity could be established. If this is the correct interpretation, the argument requires supplementing.

    Ultimately, without a definition of "protection of property rights" and a supporting argument that shows why taxation cannot be used as a means to it, this argument is simply asking us to agree.

    Philosophically, I find the most interesting cases of property rights violation to be those in which the victim had the ability and opportunity to interveen but chose not to. It is possible to be stolen from without objecting to it, and this in some regard has moral implications (not defending property lies on a continuum between defending it and actively giving it away in terms of how we interpret the moral value of the act).

    A number of people I know don't mind paying taxes, the same way others don't mind paying their gym memberships. It's still true they have no choice, but it is far from clear even without the ability to protect property that it cannot be willfully transferred. This would mean that at least for a subset of taxpayers, taxation could be seen to be in no way a violation of property rights, which indicates that it is at least a possibility.

    None of this is intended to argue that taxation is either moral or immoral. What is considered is whether the state can be said to impose taxes in order to protect property rights, a claim that has been made, sometimes even to state that this is the way it ought to be. I am not picking sides but it seems clear to me that the argument in the video is insufficient.

  17. I think there should be some sort of (call it what you like) global law enforcing agency, which is based on science and facts, that makes sure individuals don't go fucking up shit for the rest of us. 

    Wild examples;
    Let's say there's a guy so rich he can buy all the minerals that are used for computers, cars, phones, etc., and he just won't sell them to the industry, just sits on it in his vault. Or, he wants to fish out all the oceans or chop down every tree on the planet. Even though he technically and legally has the freedom and right to do so, he should not be able of doing so. 

    That's the problem I have with complete freedom. 
    There has to be a universal body in our society that approves these kinda things,
    and says no can do, when a proposed activity is going to have a negative impact for the majority, and only benefits a minority.

    Did that make any sense?

  18. This guy presumes there is not a mechanism to determine land ownership in modern society.  He implies those who do own land took it by other means.

  19. As I've said: You'll never see him do a video on the fact over two-hundred million people of age to be employed in the US are basically fighting over jobs that total about 42% of them.. On top of all the social-regulation that drives decision making with social-acceptance.. It's ONLY the major influence of pretty much everything he makes videos about..

  20. I wonder sometimes Stefan Molyneux, what your opinions are of the BELIEF in OWNERSHIP…better yet in the CLAIMS being made by those who BELIEVE in OWNERSHIP….It is my comprehension that THE CREATOR is the OWNER, meaning if you didn't create it you have no RITE to CLAIM it…for example, I often here people proclaim 'This is MY LIFE' , 'This is MY CAR', 'This is MY CHILD', 'This is MY STUFF', etc…Oh REALLY? Well then can you please take YOUR STUFF wit you when you leave this existence cus I don't want to deal with USED things that allegedly belong to someone else. Oh wait, YOU CAN'T take these things with you when you leave this existence….I wonder why? Could it be that since you didn't CREATE the things you CLAIM you don't truly OWN them? Could it be that we are really just here to USE what we NEED? I can realize that ALL this STUFF was here before I arrived and will still be here long after I'm gone, so why would I want the RESPONSE/ABILITY of the IDEAS of those who are making CLAIMS of things they didn't CREATE? I think the STATE is a great IDEA, but unfortunately this society has been CONDITIONED to BELIEVE that they have a CLAIM greater than that of the STATE and are being CHASTISED because they want to BELIEVE they OWN something when there is NO EVIDENCE to support the BELIEF. 'Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars'…don't forget, if you want to CLAIM OWNERSHIP you ALSO get to FOOT THE BILL too! Good luck!

  21. @7:45 If the other guy can make more bushels than you, you can hire that person and pay him a good amount of money to make it for you then you skim from his labour. What kind of wank free market fantasy is Stefan on???

Comments are closed.