>> we should not have rulers
> Explain "should not"?

It’s a violation of our rights, for starters. Second, it doesn’t benefit society at large. A ruler’s rule only benefits himself, and his cronies. And finally, as the “If You Were King” video explained, you can’t be a “good ruler” - there’s no such thing, because whatever good you’d like to accomplish, is financed by the immorality of robbing people for taxes. Besides, whatever you wanted to accomplish would require people doing something to that end, and they’d either do it voluntarily (and your rule would be unnecessary), or you’d have to force them and then you’re just being a thug.

> Life's unfair. Rule of law applies in some sense - if I put my savings in a bank (UK), the government guarantees them even in the event of the bank going bankrupt.

That’s irrelevant, and not even a net benefit to society, again, because those guarantees cause people not to care which bank they put their money in. Without such guarantees, people would only use trustworthy banks, and banks would have to show trustworthiness through their actions. Besides, any deposit guarantee by the government is paid from money that’s been forcefully confiscated from everyone. Oh, and there’s a limit to how many deposit guarantees they can actually carry out without the economy imploding from inflation etc.

> Why not apply the law more carefully and thoroughly instead of throwing it away?

Again, no rulers doesn’t mean no rules. You’re thinking of laws in a positive way, and there they represent common rules for people to follow, for the benefit of everyone. And that’s exactly the kind of laws/rules that would exist in a free society.

But the laws in our societies today are commands issued to us by governments. It’s always either: “You’re not allowed to do X”, or “You must do X”, and if you’re found to disobey the command, you will be punished. It’s important to realize that the vast majority of laws have nothing to do with our morals, they’re all about controlling/fleecing/ruling us and benefiting the rulers’ corporate buddies.

See: http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to...

>> ”There are multiple classes of people, but it boils down to the connected, and the not connected. Just as in pre-Revolutionary France, there is a very strict class hierarchy, and the very idea that we are equal before the law is a laughable nonsequitur.”

Speaking of laws, what if I write down on a piece of paper that everyone must eat Surströmming ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=31... ) at least once per day. Does that mean everyone has to obey my command to eat it? No? -What if me and a couple of buddies convene around a table and formulate the rule in a more “official” way, maybe something like “all citizens shall be required to partake in Surströmming at least once per day”? -Would that be enough? Still no? -Well what if we make it a piece of parchment instead, and use a high quality fountain pen, and maybe even stamp a couple of pictures of eagles on top? Would my Surströmming decree turn into a rule that everyone is morally obligated to follow then?

Of course not, people would just laugh at my insanity. But what if I declared that I’ve got an army, a police force, and prisons and that anyone who disobeys my Surströmming rule will be thrown in jail? .. Funny how that works, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ng...

> You say this as if con-artists and careless people have never hurt anyone ever, and it's just an imaginary situation.

Nope, I’m just talking about the incentives involved. Sure, there are some snake-oil salesmen around, but they’re rare.

But we’re getting sidetracked here, and I’m trying to wrap this up some time soon. You’re thinking that governments protect us as consumers, and make sure our flights reach their destinations and that we’re not sold toxic crap for food and so on. But the reality is that no government bureaucrat needs to tell Boeing to make airplanes that don’t fall down and kill people, and that governments don’t, in fact, make sure everything we consume is safe.

Boeing wants to make money through manufacturing and selling airplanes. Boeing’s customers, the airlines, want to make money by selling flights to people. Airlines need airplanes, but both need customers to make any money. It’s crucial to both that the planes are as safe as humanly possible. I have no idea what happened in Korea, but there’s no way around what I just said there. Korean Air does not need a US government bureaucrat to order them to do whatever they can to keep receiving money from their customers.

> Why do people today buy and sell harmful foods that taste nice

Well why do they? We’ve got governments to protect us from harmful food, right?

> Why do we need environmental regulation stopping companies dumping neurotoxins in local waterways?

I don’t know. Why do we need regulation to prevent BP from spilling a shit-ton of oil in the Gulf of Mexico? -Oh wait.. :p

> Why do we hear about problems in Foxconn factories?

This might be related: https://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24772/absent-labor-unio...

>> Given that Chinese government prohibits independent trade labor unions, and that the sole official union, All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) has done little to represent workers, it appears that human rights and labor organizations have stepped up to fill that gap.

In other words, the Chinese government is preventing Chinese workers from forming effective unions.

> Why is there such a thing as an obesity epidemic, if people stop buying things that hurt them?

That’s a separate issue. I meant food that’s actively harmful, in a way that gets noticed. But people can stuff themselves with fast food for ages before suffering any permanent damage from their lifestyle.

> People don't buy harmful things? People won't make harmful things? As if!

Of course they do. But governments don’t protect us from ourselves either! That's our job regardless of whether we have rulers.

> At its highest ever price, all gold ever mined put together would be worth ~8 trillion dollars. The USA GDP is 17 trillion dollars, for the USA alone. (Both Wikipedia). Where are you going to get enough gold to back the entire economy?

We’ve got astounding numbers of “nominal wealth” floating around, but that doesn’t mean precious metals wouldn’t do just fine as a foundation for a sound currency.

There’s a lot to talk about in economics, but check this out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmT6-ChKpaiIVu2fhEIsNtQ

>” Since the 1950s, annual gold output growth has approximately kept pace with world population growth of around 2x, although far less than world economic growth of some 8x"
There are ~192 countries in the world. How many use a gold standard now? 0.

Of course they don’t, because a gold standard places limits on what governments can do. That’s exactly why the world’s governments got rid of it.

> Interesting point about the police.

Indeed. Watch this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IO...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list...