From 1:55 to 3:30 he lays out a pretty good argument for never listening to anti-government revolutionaries. It's the only really persuasive argument he gives.

From the start to the 1:55 mark, he demonstrates why I often tune out libertarian writings/videos, since they seem to be unable to get to the point without making a litany of false assertions about the nature of the world they're in, and then building on those false assertions by declaring them obvious fact and that "everyone" already agrees with their point of view, they just don't know it yet.

He kicks off the remaining 4 and a half minutes by declaring that he's not about to describe a utopia. He then proceeds to say all the things utopians of all stripes say. Things like "only we understand human nature", "only we understand how to create a society that's moral", "only we know how to enforce the One True Moral Code without corruption", and the eternal utopian promise of happiness, freedom, piety, and plenty.

It's a pretty basic paradox libertarians need to deal with. To enforce your moral code you need a state, or a state-like actor (e.g. a private jurisprudence provider). All states (and state-like actors) are susceptible to corruption from within and without, especially if you define "corruption" as including giving in to popular demands for tax-funded welfare programs. Without any state, someone will eventually create one, or an existing neighbor state will assume control of the region to "help out".

If there's a solution to that dynamic, libertarians shouldn't play coy "buy my book" games with it, they should be shouting it from the rooftops.

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.