I’m sorry sir! Talking about what’s going to happen is pretty much impossible. I personally know people that couldn’t wait to get away from their communist society. It’s not going to be a gentle socialism my darling again this setup is designed to take away our rights….. Good luck with that sir❤️
@@osaker205 Privatizing the functions of government and disposing of government waste? yes, it will happen. The more power your Comrades gain in the USA, the more secession will become a real probability, and cities will begin going AnCap, or Minarchist, pushing towards AnCap. Your fantasy utopia of socialism will collapse like it always does in your deep blue states ;)
@@osaker205 Your future looks like Cuba. lmao! Our future, in Red states, will continue to move towards smaller government, until we reach minarchist, then AnCap. We might airdrop you some of our surplus in humanitarian aid.
At the federal level, we have not added any Representatives since 1929, 92 years. US population was 122 million. We have had 50 states since 1959, 61 years. US population was 178 million. The number of Representatives and Senators determines the size of the electoral college. There are several states in the US that need to be broken up. 23 counties in the state of Illinois have voted, in many cases during general elections, to separate from Chicago and Cook county. There are similar movements in other large blue staes. Our population is now 330 million. Breaking up big states, creating more Senators would help Decentralize power. We should also create a new Reapportionment act and increase the number of Representatives as well. Increase the number of states to 55. Add PR and DC, and create Southern Illinois, break apart eastern WA, OR, and NE CA into another, and do the same with CO or VA. Increase number of Representatives to around 600. This would reduce the power of the two parties, and open the opportunity for a 3rd party to win elections, and expand individual liberty.
Instead of breaking up large “states”, break up the United States. Bringing political sovereignty to every state within. Abolish the whole federal government
@@kennethholbert6468Perhaps you mean returning to CONSTITUTIONAL government rather than PRECEDENT law, which is frequently unconstitutional in its interpretation. Brion McClanahan addresses this question of 'NATIONAL' law vs FEDERAL and STATE law. ruclips.net/video/kv8gmEY27G4/видео.html
@@kennethholbert6468 I don't know how we can return to total individual sovereignty unless somehow all AI technology is destroyed. Any ideas how to do that?
34:14 yeah. If you want an example of a bigger country not being able to roll over a smaller country. The USA can't even beat a bunch of goat farmers with ak47's in the middle east. Never mind a whole country.
Monopolies are not necessarily bad or unwanted. They happen more often under government involvement which makes competition much harder. In a free market there will always be competition if the existing monopoly fails to provide consumers with what they want. The government is always the most malevolent state in any situation historically. Individuals mostly want to enjoy and live their lives. The free market provides the best conditions for the advancement of medical technology through profit incentive.
The guy who stripped at the Libertarian Party convention in 2016 was James Weeks (he is very insufferable) but what's funny is that he actually lost a bunch of weight since then. So technically Ryan's example doesn't work anymore. I just thought that was funny.
Never mentioned the cost of duplicated efforts that multiple states derived from the U.S. would incur. Military research.....each country would be duplicating research on jets, missiles, etc. But I guess this was an attempt to persuade and not an open discussion on the topic.
@@thorkappabrosilon Yes I do assume that, because they generally do. Those common ends would include scientific advancement, self-defense, representation, among other ends that are common to all states and are scalable and, as such, would incur redundant costs. Trade and specialization can mitigate this redundancy for some things but without a doubt their would be many costs that would be duplicated by each derived state. This is a basic business idea and is proven in the real world by M&A activity.
@@thorkappabrosilon That is correct except it is at the granular level as well as the broadest. I am actually for splitting up the US. I wonder that it is actually inevitable at this point. I am only pointing out that there will be a cost in duplicative efforts, which there will be. It will be messy, it will be heated, it will go by state and/or county. I personally believe the bigger something is, the less efficient it becomes. I agree with you about independent efforts leading to benefits that outweigh any benefits incurred by larger, monolithic central control.
Decentralization doesn't really "weaken states" or "break down the power of states". It's the colluding ruling class that is weakened and broken by decentralization. Decentralization merely allows for more organic and less politically contrived distribution of power and wealth within unions than existing centralized autonomous federal or global governments can offer. We need to remember that national unions were NOT created because citizens wanted to forfeit their personal autonomy to political representatives, who use legislatures to pursue personal & ruling class interests, while holding public office. National governments came into existence at a time when citizens could not routinely be involved with the policy-making processes of governments. Technology allows everyone to influence the direction of policies through routine and regular referendums. Every community could host its own blockchain voting server and every voter could have sole access to their own voting data, while everyone else can track it from local to national level roll ups. Additionally, we all need to break away from the global and federal trend of executing one-size-fits-all policies that might be convenient to the ruling class, but are inhumane toward real people, with diverse interests. Citizens could participate in pre-approval referendums to formally give their representatives a mandate to bring a new policy to the legislature. Conversely, they could prohibit any issue from being discussed by their representative when their community has no interest in. Mandates, in a democracy, come from citizens. Obviously, every community, like every individual, is going to have its own unique interests. The very idea that policies that might suit the interest of one region would be coercively FORCED on everyone is symptomatic of TYRANNY. In a society that truly honors diversity, every state, if not county and township, should be able to opt-out of any policy or program if it is not in their interest to accept it. That's fair. In a bottom-up distribution of power, the decision-making authority is restored to individuals and communities and the collection of taxes and use of public funds should also be within the control of the taxpayers who contribute. I don't think anyone but federal and global policy influencer would disagree that international affairs do not take priority over the public interests of their own communities and yet, taxpayers currently have no means to prohibit their tax contributions from being used on programs they disagree with or have no interest in. So, political decentralization - that is, the restoration of self-determination back to communities - would avoid federal and globalist over-reach and power-grabbing, halt misuse of public funds and stop the agenda to create one-size-fits-all-policies that no voter asked for or wants. Because federal politicians have autonomous control over the public purse and there's no way to stop them from spending it as they choose, they are not going to willingly give up the privileges that taxpaying citizens are funding. Furthermore, there is no existing mechanism for taxpaying citizens to direct how their contributions are spent. This is not an accident. The system ain't broke. It's FIXED. Rogue federal governments that have full autonomy and are choosing to not serve public interests cannot be influenced in any way but the four year election cycle of promises & broken promises, or through corporate lobby groups with lots of cash to splash. So separation from the federal government is an important first step toward ending the exploitation. State legislatures can collectively manage post-federal agencies and programs. An autonomous federal government, which can ignore public interests, is not necessary. The United States can operate under interstate agreements to collaborate, when it serves the interests of state citizens and opt-out of policies and programs that don't serve their interests. This would also allow national defense to continue, while enabling greater scrutiny and accountability. It might be in the interest of DC to let the DOD have secret black budgets, but it's not in the interest of taxpayers. Review panels that assess requests for keeping information TOP SECRET could also be instituted to ensure that funds are not being misappropriated. Selection of these panels could be chosen in the same way that citizens are chosen for jury duty. Some conservatives distrust democracy because they have been misled to think it is "mob rule" and a liberal majority could force their political ideologies on them. The fact is, real democracies allow for diversity of interests, while tyrannies force everyone into cookie-cutter communities, because that's what serves the interests of the ruling class, not real people. Changing that misconception of democracy is essential to resolving the reluctance to decentralize policy-making and restore community-level autonomy while preserving cultural and ideological diversity.
What do you think is the problem in Latin America, we have similar culture, same language and a lot of states, but we didn't developed as Europe or US.
Kinda depends if you count certain ethnic groups as countries China relegates them to a working class however doesn’t regonize their peoples as countries. Most are on their northern border
he raises decent point but i still have a hard time getting on board. Power centralizes even in regions where there are many independent states. For instance, look at Europe and the ever centralizing EU. There are advantages to centralization that cause it to inevitably manifest. Another example is the original 13 states and the transition from the articles of confederation to the us constitution. A final argument that he does not address is the idea that central governments can actually protect individual rights. You’ll notice he doesn’t not spend much time harping on the American Civil War as it is a clear example of a state attempting secession to continue abusing human liberties. Again, I see many advantages to smaller/ more local governance, but there are clear issues with it that he seems to gloss over. I think a return to true federalism in the united states would be a better strategy than complete succession.
Your argument contradicts itself. You are saying we need an centralized entity to protect liberties when its the centralized entity that allows for the elimination of liberties. With your suggestion we would have to hope the centralized entity stay benevolent. And the U.S Government has been chipping away at Liberties for centuries so to say they are protecting Liberties.
@@mrt094 I wasn’t necessarily advocating for centralized power. I think my point that we should return to a truer form of federalism highlights that. I was rather just highlighting the fact that there have been instances where centralization has protected liberty and that to argue succession would solve all of our current issues is a bit narrow sighted.
Good point. I was just pondering that. I think the US was designed to be decentralized and in many ways it still is. It seems as though we are moving rapidly towards centralization though. Given that, it seems as though it may be inevitable at the nation state level even in federated systems. The EU is another example. It is rapidly centralizing power.
This is too radical for Americans to consider. We can't even get them to admit that the USA is a federation of 50 sovereign states, designed to have limited federal powers primarily to deal with international diplomacy and national defense. Instead, we took the centralization approach, weakening people's rights, state's rights, and sending all our money to federal powers. My taxes are 18% to the federal government and 12% to my state/county/city, so I'm effectively only 2/3's of a free person and cannot move between states to get dramatically different outcomes. Instead of money being spent locally (or better, by me voluntarily!), 50% more is sent to central planners. Clearly, we can't even do the US as designed much less this radical thinking.
That’s the unfortunate reason as to why the US is now a failed experiment in decentralizing a nation state. Had we maintained the intended sovereign structure, we would already be decentralized. Unfortunately, decentralization at this point would seem to require secession as the federal government would fight tooth and nail against the dissolution of any power or revenue stream.
What do you mean by "perfect competition"? As long as peoples' right to autonomy over their body and their other property is absolute, competition will exist as the strongest form of accountability for any individual or group. There is no "perfection" required.
@@hagoryopi2101 I find it so interesting how comfortable opponents of anarcho-capitalism are with the position they are committed to: "Humans cannot be allowed to have liberty because enough of them are stupid or evil enough that they will abuse their liberty and create misery, so we must institute an entity with the power to suppress liberties". What will this institution be composed of..? Who will monitor this institution..? The same humans who are, supposedly, too stupid or evil to govern themselves? Edit: alternatively, the position is "humans are simply horrible creatures whose enslavement is good, particularly since I identify with the sub-class of humans that manages the enslaving. More cake for me! Ipso facto humans are horrible".
Since it's unclear to you lemme help you out: Secession of the 50 states means enormously more trade barriers in between the states and a weaker economic base with less competitivness in the global market. It means - certainly if we apply any study of world history - likely violent conflict between the newly created states, and very likely a need to spend even more on defense than at present as a % of GDP in order to defend what is, for many of the states, very open geographies with little to no barriers existing in between. It also means massively less clout internationally, gone will be the days when we can show up in Tokyo and say "we want a comprehensive free trade agreement if we're gonna continue our alliance", or "ASEAN, we'd like to do a trade deal with your entire bloc."
In what way would decentralization, thereby giving more diversity of governance and more power to local communities, somehow stur up chaos? That'd increase peace and prosperity. What does create chaos is an ever centralized, disconnected state imposing it's will on a large portion of people who hold different views and have different needs/wants.
It amazes me how he can say in one sentence that secession will enable a group of people to rape and mutilate innocent people (which is what circumcision is) and then in the next sentence say that secession helps protect human rights.
It's not that amazing. Decentralization creates diversity in models of government. Some will protect human rights. Others won't, and presumably the people who care about their human rights (like parents who don't want their children circumcised), will tend to migrate to the freer states.
@@troll_kin9456 so basically some areas would allow pedophilia and other areas wouldn't. Do you see the problem here? Unfortunately children can't really defend themselves or demand independence or human rights.
The world is full of crimes against humanity. Centralization of power hasn't changed this. It's only led to genocide on an unprecedented scale. Freedom for some is better than slavery for all.
@@sb3424 parents can't protect their children if the state holds higher authority than them. I'd rather that the potential for evil be decentralized and sporadic, than centralized and inescapable---the former is much easier to hold accountable, the latter immune to accountability.
Get rid of the state, the most destructive institution in history. Replace it with full capitalism, working to alleviate poverty, health, wealth, and promote peaceful cooperation under the division of labor and private property. We all want the human race to prosper. Anarcho-capitalism is how.
@@banana9056 No not at all. Full capitalism means no government. It means no regulation, no subsidies, bailouts, intellectual property, taxes, price controls, minimum wages, central bank money and credit, trade protectionism, licensing requirements, eminent domain, etc. This means no special privileges for some business and no barriers to entry for market competition. Full private property rights and the profit and loss system. It's the last thing we have in this world. Do you like reading? I can recommend a few books
@@theyoungkulaks3381 when a body external takes an economic position that does not include all individuals then it acts against all individuals. Simply put- If some one else is looking out for their own interest then they can't be of any interest of another, so a selfish government over people that can't be governed is not a government but a gang rule and can hurt the people it governs. Political Decentralization is a desire of the Slavers, the Pedophiles, The gangs, no one should be this stupid
@@whalercumming9911 Are you a Marxist? Anyway, Anarcho-Capitalism would absolutely have laws in the form of contracts between people, businesses, etc. Slavery and other atrocities violate the non-aggression principle, so contracts would be in place from the beginning to prevent them. I just don't know about the homesteading approach; I would prefer a corporate city where everyone is a stockholder and there is some planning to lay out these cities in an organized way to facilitate the building of roads, designation of various mining operations, etc, up front, and not after the fact - thinking of it almost like a colony on another world, but here on earth, on purchased land. It would be a planning and organizing monstrosity, but I think it could be done.
@@theyoungkulaks3381 The notion that anarcho-capitalism isn't modernity-feudalism is one of a far stretch. An Anarcho-capitalist system will be ruled by social darwinism and as hierarchy in class becomes caste and life becomes product freedom is only found on top then so only death is free on the bottom. Those ideas expressed in that reply above are ideological, Machiavelli would caution against that but there isn't a reason why a colony wouldn't work like that ---aside from the history of such not doing favor in the case. Marx is a pain to read and it made a justification not a point most often his work is an insult by people that haven't read it thus could in no way grasp the difficulty in sorting out his misconceptions, to answer the original question : If it was possible to make sense of Marx it would be possible to be a Marxist
Love this guy, i want to find more of his work. Thank you for the lecture!
Couldn't agree more. For more of his, he regularly writes artices for mises.org, Concise and on point.
You might like my channel.
Ideal maximum political decentralization is giving all governmental powers back to individuals.
@cartoon clips thanks! good day to you as well :)
Back to? People never had power...
I’m sorry sir! Talking about what’s going to happen is pretty much impossible. I personally know people that couldn’t wait to get away from their communist society. It’s not going to be a gentle socialism my darling again this setup is designed to take away our rights….. Good luck with that sir❤️
Do you know the book he talks about foreign policy?
Haha, this talk is more relevant now, than ever. AnCap FTW
Your fantasy land will never happen lmao
@@osaker205 Privatizing the functions of government and disposing of government waste?
yes, it will happen. The more power your Comrades gain in the USA, the more secession will become a real probability, and cities will begin going AnCap, or Minarchist, pushing towards AnCap.
Your fantasy utopia of socialism will collapse like it always does in your deep blue states ;)
@@osaker205 Your future looks like Cuba. lmao!
Our future, in Red states, will continue to move towards smaller government, until we reach minarchist, then AnCap. We might airdrop you some of our surplus in humanitarian aid.
Constitutional Urbism ftw.
@@TheOtherCaleb Not exactly, but I like the effort
WELCOME TO THE SECESSION TALK
Nullification, decentralization, secession. Let's discuss all of 'em. It's time.
I can see the subtitles. Thank you misesmedia.
Muito bom mesmo! Espero que o algaritimo me recomende mais vídeos como este.
Aqui não, no Odysse sim
@@d68st90 sim amigo!!!
At the federal level, we have not added any Representatives since 1929, 92 years. US population was 122 million.
We have had 50 states since 1959, 61 years. US population was 178 million.
The number of Representatives and Senators determines the size of the electoral college.
There are several states in the US that need to be broken up.
23 counties in the state of Illinois have voted, in many cases during general elections, to separate from Chicago and Cook county.
There are similar movements in other large blue staes.
Our population is now 330 million.
Breaking up big states, creating more Senators would help Decentralize power.
We should also create a new Reapportionment act and increase the number of Representatives as well.
Increase the number of states to 55. Add PR and DC, and create Southern Illinois, break apart eastern WA, OR, and NE CA into another, and do the same with CO or VA.
Increase number of Representatives to around 600.
This would reduce the power of the two parties, and open the opportunity for a 3rd party to win elections, and expand individual liberty.
Instead of breaking up large “states”, break up the United States. Bringing political sovereignty to every state within. Abolish the whole federal government
@@kennethholbert6468Perhaps you mean returning to CONSTITUTIONAL government rather than PRECEDENT law, which is frequently unconstitutional in its interpretation. Brion McClanahan addresses this question of 'NATIONAL' law vs FEDERAL and STATE law. ruclips.net/video/kv8gmEY27G4/видео.html
@@1charlastar886 I’d rather no man rule over another, regardless of the circumstances.
@@kennethholbert6468 I don't know how we can return to total individual sovereignty unless somehow all AI technology is destroyed. Any ideas how to do that?
@@1charlastar886 People make up their own interpretations of the Constitution.
North Korea: Am I a Joke to you?!
34:14 yeah. If you want an example of a bigger country not being able to roll over a smaller country. The USA can't even beat a bunch of goat farmers with ak47's in the middle east. Never mind a whole country.
Freedom comes from redrawing the imaginary lines. The new master will be better than the old master.
Ryan, mate - a few questions. How do you deal with monopolies, malevolent states, and the advance of medical technology? Answer me these and I'm in.
Monopolies are not necessarily bad or unwanted. They happen more often under government involvement which makes competition much harder. In a free market there will always be competition if the existing monopoly fails to provide consumers with what they want.
The government is always the most malevolent state in any situation historically. Individuals mostly want to enjoy and live their lives.
The free market provides the best conditions for the advancement of medical technology through profit incentive.
"The statiest state that has ever existed." I love it. If only the wanna-be totalitarians talked like this.
The guy who stripped at the Libertarian Party convention in 2016 was James Weeks (he is very insufferable) but what's funny is that he actually lost a bunch of weight since then.
So technically Ryan's example doesn't work anymore. I just thought that was funny.
so long as the tyranny is equally spread about, and bellies are kept full...
Never mentioned the cost of duplicated efforts that multiple states derived from the U.S. would incur. Military research.....each country would be duplicating research on jets, missiles, etc. But I guess this was an attempt to persuade and not an open discussion on the topic.
@@thorkappabrosilon Yes I do assume that, because they generally do. Those common ends would include scientific advancement, self-defense, representation, among other ends that are common to all states and are scalable and, as such, would incur redundant costs. Trade and specialization can mitigate this redundancy for some things but without a doubt their would be many costs that would be duplicated by each derived state. This is a basic business idea and is proven in the real world by M&A activity.
@@thorkappabrosilon That is correct except it is at the granular level as well as the broadest. I am actually for splitting up the US. I wonder that it is actually inevitable at this point. I am only pointing out that there will be a cost in duplicative efforts, which there will be. It will be messy, it will be heated, it will go by state and/or county. I personally believe the bigger something is, the less efficient it becomes. I agree with you about independent efforts leading to benefits that outweigh any benefits incurred by larger, monolithic central control.
ANCAP PORRA LETS GO CARALHO VAMO
Decentralization doesn't really "weaken states" or "break down the power of states". It's the colluding ruling class that is weakened and broken by decentralization. Decentralization merely allows for more organic and less politically contrived distribution of power and wealth within unions than existing centralized autonomous federal or global governments can offer.
We need to remember that national unions were NOT created because citizens wanted to forfeit their personal autonomy to political representatives, who use legislatures to pursue personal & ruling class interests, while holding public office. National governments came into existence at a time when citizens could not routinely be involved with the policy-making processes of governments. Technology allows everyone to influence the direction of policies through routine and regular referendums. Every community could host its own blockchain voting server and every voter could have sole access to their own voting data, while everyone else can track it from local to national level roll ups.
Additionally, we all need to break away from the global and federal trend of executing one-size-fits-all policies that might be convenient to the ruling class, but are inhumane toward real people, with diverse interests. Citizens could participate in pre-approval referendums to formally give their representatives a mandate to bring a new policy to the legislature. Conversely, they could prohibit any issue from being discussed by their representative when their community has no interest in.
Mandates, in a democracy, come from citizens. Obviously, every community, like every individual, is going to have its own unique interests. The very idea that policies that might suit the interest of one region would be coercively FORCED on everyone is symptomatic of TYRANNY. In a society that truly honors diversity, every state, if not county and township, should be able to opt-out of any policy or program if it is not in their interest to accept it. That's fair.
In a bottom-up distribution of power, the decision-making authority is restored to individuals and communities and the collection of taxes and use of public funds should also be within the control of the taxpayers who contribute. I don't think anyone but federal and global policy influencer would disagree that international affairs do not take priority over the public interests of their own communities and yet, taxpayers currently have no means to prohibit their tax contributions from being used on programs they disagree with or have no interest in. So, political decentralization - that is, the restoration of self-determination back to communities - would avoid federal and globalist over-reach and power-grabbing, halt misuse of public funds and stop the agenda to create one-size-fits-all-policies that no voter asked for or wants.
Because federal politicians have autonomous control over the public purse and there's no way to stop them from spending it as they choose, they are not going to willingly give up the privileges that taxpaying citizens are funding. Furthermore, there is no existing mechanism for taxpaying citizens to direct how their contributions are spent. This is not an accident. The system ain't broke. It's FIXED. Rogue federal governments that have full autonomy and are choosing to not serve public interests cannot be influenced in any way but the four year election cycle of promises & broken promises, or through corporate lobby groups with lots of cash to splash.
So separation from the federal government is an important first step toward ending the exploitation. State legislatures can collectively manage post-federal agencies and programs. An autonomous federal government, which can ignore public interests, is not necessary. The United States can operate under interstate agreements to collaborate, when it serves the interests of state citizens and opt-out of policies and programs that don't serve their interests. This would also allow national defense to continue, while enabling greater scrutiny and accountability. It might be in the interest of DC to let the DOD have secret black budgets, but it's not in the interest of taxpayers. Review panels that assess requests for keeping information TOP SECRET could also be instituted to ensure that funds are not being misappropriated. Selection of these panels could be chosen in the same way that citizens are chosen for jury duty.
Some conservatives distrust democracy because they have been misled to think it is "mob rule" and a liberal majority could force their political ideologies on them. The fact is, real democracies allow for diversity of interests, while tyrannies force everyone into cookie-cutter communities, because that's what serves the interests of the ruling class, not real people. Changing that misconception of democracy is essential to resolving the reluctance to decentralize policy-making and restore community-level autonomy while preserving cultural and ideological diversity.
How did this lecture get a dislike?
Minarchists.
Statists
At State Indoctrination Camp (school) libertarianism was never even mentioned.
What was the name of the book?? I don't understand
What do you think is the problem in Latin America, we have similar culture, same language and a lot of states, but we didn't developed as Europe or US.
Latin America has a lot of enormous huge states!
Early on Latin American countries chose socialism
33:45 - What are the 18 countries China borders? When I count everything I get 16.
Kinda depends if you count certain ethnic groups as countries China relegates them to a working class however doesn’t regonize their peoples as countries. Most are on their northern border
he raises decent point but i still have a hard time getting on board. Power centralizes even in regions where there are many independent states. For instance, look at Europe and the ever centralizing EU. There are advantages to centralization that cause it to inevitably manifest. Another example is the original 13 states and the transition from the articles of confederation to the us constitution. A final argument that he does not address is the idea that central governments can actually protect individual rights. You’ll notice he doesn’t not spend much time harping on the American Civil War as it is a clear example of a state attempting secession to continue abusing human liberties. Again, I see many advantages to smaller/ more local governance, but there are clear issues with it that he seems to gloss over. I think a return to true federalism in the united states would be a better strategy than complete succession.
Your argument contradicts itself. You are saying we need an centralized entity to protect liberties when its the centralized entity that allows for the elimination of liberties. With your suggestion we would have to hope the centralized entity stay benevolent. And the U.S Government has been chipping away at Liberties for centuries so to say they are protecting Liberties.
@@mrt094 I wasn’t necessarily advocating for centralized power. I think my point that we should return to a truer form of federalism highlights that. I was rather just highlighting the fact that there have been instances where centralization has protected liberty and that to argue succession would solve all of our current issues is a bit narrow sighted.
You don't need secession in order to get decentralization either.
A lot of times you do. The leviathan is a good book to read if you haven’t. Big gov will never let go of it’s previously established controlled powers
Good point. I was just pondering that. I think the US was designed to be decentralized and in many ways it still is. It seems as though we are moving rapidly towards centralization though. Given that, it seems as though it may be inevitable at the nation state level even in federated systems. The EU is another example. It is rapidly centralizing power.
@@thorkappabrosilon I would be more than thrilled if our federal gov was limited in the vein of the European Union’s Commission, plus defense.
This is too radical for Americans to consider. We can't even get them to admit that the USA is a federation of 50 sovereign states, designed to have limited federal powers primarily to deal with international diplomacy and national defense. Instead, we took the centralization approach, weakening people's rights, state's rights, and sending all our money to federal powers.
My taxes are 18% to the federal government and 12% to my state/county/city, so I'm effectively only 2/3's of a free person and cannot move between states to get dramatically different outcomes. Instead of money being spent locally (or better, by me voluntarily!), 50% more is sent to central planners. Clearly, we can't even do the US as designed much less this radical thinking.
That’s the unfortunate reason as to why the US is now a failed experiment in decentralizing a nation state. Had we maintained the intended sovereign structure, we would already be decentralized. Unfortunately, decentralization at this point would seem to require secession as the federal government would fight tooth and nail against the dissolution of any power or revenue stream.
i pooped my pants
McMaken just described the United States of Afghanistan.
Secession 💯👍
Welcome to MisesU, where perfect competition is the highest politcal ideal, smh.
"Perfect competition" is the basis on which people can be free among themselves and create what they will. It is totalitarian hubris to want more.
@@TheGerogero perfect competition is fake and gay.
@@Max-nc4zn Which makes it a convenient straw man. Is decentralization fake and gay?
What do you mean by "perfect competition"? As long as peoples' right to autonomy over their body and their other property is absolute, competition will exist as the strongest form of accountability for any individual or group. There is no "perfection" required.
@@hagoryopi2101 I find it so interesting how comfortable opponents of anarcho-capitalism are with the position they are committed to: "Humans cannot be allowed to have liberty because enough of them are stupid or evil enough that they will abuse their liberty and create misery, so we must institute an entity with the power to suppress liberties". What will this institution be composed of..? Who will monitor this institution..? The same humans who are, supposedly, too stupid or evil to govern themselves?
Edit: alternatively, the position is "humans are simply horrible creatures whose enslavement is good, particularly since I identify with the sub-class of humans that manages the enslaving. More cake for me! Ipso facto humans are horrible".
Counter economics is better
Constitutional urbism is the best political ideology.
Starts making no sense at all after about 1/2.
Since it's unclear to you lemme help you out: Secession of the 50 states means enormously more trade barriers in between the states and a weaker economic base with less competitivness in the global market. It means - certainly if we apply any study of world history - likely violent conflict between the newly created states, and very likely a need to spend even more on defense than at present as a % of GDP in order to defend what is, for many of the states, very open geographies with little to no barriers existing in between.
It also means massively less clout internationally, gone will be the days when we can show up in Tokyo and say "we want a comprehensive free trade agreement if we're gonna continue our alliance", or "ASEAN, we'd like to do a trade deal with your entire bloc."
This is inappropriate. All this will do is create more chaos.
How do you say so? And the chaos of today? Is it created by big centralized states or small ones?
In what way would decentralization, thereby giving more diversity of governance and more power to local communities, somehow stur up chaos? That'd increase peace and prosperity. What does create chaos is an ever centralized, disconnected state imposing it's will on a large portion of people who hold different views and have different needs/wants.
It amazes me how he can say in one sentence that secession will enable a group of people to rape and mutilate innocent people (which is what circumcision is) and then in the next sentence say that secession helps protect human rights.
It's not that amazing. Decentralization creates diversity in models of government. Some will protect human rights. Others won't, and presumably the people who care about their human rights (like parents who don't want their children circumcised), will tend to migrate to the freer states.
@@troll_kin9456 so basically some areas would allow pedophilia and other areas wouldn't. Do you see the problem here? Unfortunately children can't really defend themselves or demand independence or human rights.
The world is full of crimes against humanity. Centralization of power hasn't changed this. It's only led to genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Freedom for some is better than slavery for all.
@@sb3424 parents can't protect their children if the state holds higher authority than them. I'd rather that the potential for evil be decentralized and sporadic, than centralized and inescapable---the former is much easier to hold accountable, the latter immune to accountability.
@@hagoryopi2101 wow youtube keeps censoring my reply to you
I do not get the purpose of anarcho-capitalism.
Get rid of the state, the most destructive institution in history. Replace it with full capitalism, working to alleviate poverty, health, wealth, and promote peaceful cooperation under the division of labor and private property. We all want the human race to prosper. Anarcho-capitalism is how.
@@OrthoHoppean but isn't the US already full capitalist?
@@banana9056 No not at all. Full capitalism means no government. It means no regulation, no subsidies, bailouts, intellectual property, taxes, price controls, minimum wages, central bank money and credit, trade protectionism, licensing requirements, eminent domain, etc. This means no special privileges for some business and no barriers to entry for market competition. Full private property rights and the profit and loss system. It's the last thing we have in this world. Do you like reading? I can recommend a few books
@@OrthoHoppean This seems like a case where the use of the term capitalism is causing genuine confusion. Maybe the critics of the word are right.
@@troll_kin9456 Yes, the average person equates the term "capitalism" with corporate fascism.
Any Economic action Not for the community but For the individual is an act against the community.
Too vague. Unpack that.
@@theyoungkulaks3381 when a body external takes an economic position that does not include all individuals then it acts against all individuals. Simply put- If some one else is looking out for their own interest then they can't be of any interest of another, so a selfish government over people that can't be governed is not a government but a gang rule and can hurt the people it governs. Political Decentralization is a desire of the Slavers, the Pedophiles, The gangs, no one should be this stupid
@@whalercumming9911 Are you a Marxist?
Anyway, Anarcho-Capitalism would absolutely have laws in the form of contracts between people, businesses, etc. Slavery and other atrocities violate the non-aggression principle, so contracts would be in place from the beginning to prevent them.
I just don't know about the homesteading approach; I would prefer a corporate city where everyone is a stockholder and there is some planning to lay out these cities in an organized way to facilitate the building of roads, designation of various mining operations, etc, up front, and not after the fact - thinking of it almost like a colony on another world, but here on earth, on purchased land.
It would be a planning and organizing monstrosity, but I think it could be done.
Any economic action it is also for the comunity, you cant trade with yourself.
@@theyoungkulaks3381 The notion that anarcho-capitalism isn't modernity-feudalism is one of a far stretch. An Anarcho-capitalist system will be ruled by social darwinism and as hierarchy in class becomes caste and life becomes product freedom is only found on top then so only death is free on the bottom. Those ideas expressed in that reply above are ideological, Machiavelli would caution against that but there isn't a reason why a colony wouldn't work like that ---aside from the history of such not doing favor in the case. Marx is a pain to read and it made a justification not a point most often his work is an insult by people that haven't read it thus could in no way grasp the difficulty in sorting out his misconceptions, to answer the original question : If it was possible to make sense of Marx it would be possible to be a Marxist
Well, get on with it, then!