Can Decentralization Save Humanity? - Why Smaller is Better in Politics

[@academyofideas]

Become a Supporting Member! - academyofideas.com/members/ Clifton Duncan KZbin - www.youtube.com/@CliftonADuncan Clifton Duncan Twitter -twitter.com/cliftonaduncan The art in the thumbnail is titled "New Pioneers", by Mark Henson - www.markhensonart.com/

[@missouribattleflag328]

The #Nashville Murderer was party to litigation against the church. The church was targeted. clearly. A #Hate crime law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-appeals/2016/m2015-02154-coa-r3-cv.html

[@williamabbott9437]

Do not like the narration.

[@zeev]

13:30 you quote toynbee. amazing. well done. this was a great treatment.

[@tomasvrabec1845]

I'll add. You said 2 great wars came out of Nation States. Not true. WW2 had barely any nation states and it was empires. Also, I would urge you to consider the difference in what a Nation State meant for the West and what for the East of Europe. West had empires, empires turned to Nation states ... But still empires. For them it was a reformation to keep themselves as they are. Hence Portuguese and French even made their colonies the integral parts of the core. So did Russia with it's federalisation. The east had no states.. empires fell and Nation States were established. It was a protective measure which ensures the population of the new Nations would not be a minority and would no longer be ethno-linguistically supressed.

[@squigglyarmz197]

Feudalism, divide yourselves from yourselves 😒

[@madhusudan]

Decentralization offers two major benefits: 1. Bad ideas have less reach. 2. Other territories offer a contrast to highlight bad ideas and serve as a laboratory of ideas to see what is successful and worth emulating.

[@Philosophaster]

Remember though, we are assigning value to ideas believing that we can agree on what is good or bad. The marketplace of ideas is amoral, so the actual determinants of a system is its effectiveness, not its morality. Sometimes evil ideas work for a time, with horrific but "effective" outcomes. You know the old adage, "at least in Nazi Germany the trains were on time"?

[@elizaj4431]

Absolutely and this fits with how humans naturally learn and evolve. If something really works and creates good outcomes people organically want to emulate and it doesn't require force. And when a particular unit became tyrannical or dysfunctional and enough didn't like it they could choose a different one and it would fail. What we repeatedly see in the big centralized models is they use power to eliminate the ability to reject their rule and rules.

[@matthewoates4656]

@@elizaj4431 Exactly. Although centralization does have certain benefits (standardization of infrastructure, currencies, measurements, language, etc), it almost always blunts competition for the best outcome (in any field of endeavor). And that shackles not just freedom, but humanity's potential.

[@elizaj4431]

@Matthew Oates Yes, I agree. Decentralized bodies would still be able to coordinate and collaborate but can do so based on common needs and interests serving their members voluntarily. This is also deeply human. I've also been studying business arcs from major growth and success to demise and a common scenario I see is past a point many big companies became sclerotic. Drunk on success the money began to go to huge executive salaries whose output seemed to deliver diminishing returns, increasing lack of responsiveness, connection and cooperation to lower levels within the company and decreased innovation, money instead going to buying out or stifling promising competitors and leeching off their innovation. I think capitalism can be a positive force up to the point it becomes huge conglomerates, monopolies, and wealth congregated in a minority who use this to keep an advantage, rig the system and keep competition down. Now some are even trying to use power in government to bypass consumer choice entirely. Consumers are taxed to fund their product creation, then they are charged to buy the product, and now government can compel people to fund and consume products whether they want them or not! There's no perfect system though. Decentralization, limiting money influence in politics, and preventing monopolies are some ways to address some of it. The economic system also needs to not incentivise debt and debt shuffling but rather real value creation too.

[@Gurrehable]

I've been saying this for decades. Nations should be the biggest governing body, with regional and local governments given a lot more freedom. International politics works best on the basis of treaties and forums.

[@DannySullivanMusic]

I'm glad these ideas are becoming more prevalent. The age of the faceless bureaucracy must end.

[@Myreactionwhen_80085]

Bureaucracy with a face (populism) isn't any better

[@A-2-The-J]

​​@@Myreactionwhen_80085 not if we a have a system of direct / participatory democracy

[@Myreactionwhen_80085]

@@A-2-The-J that's never been attempted on a national level. I'm nearly convinced that's impossible to pull off on the national level. Although this doomer channel likes to exaggerate "modern" problems

[@adel19997]

aka small government, local reach & direct contact

[@notrius7754]

Im afraid that 1: These ideas are nothing else other than an utopian dream, unable to be acomplished because of competition between super-powers in the modern world 2: You want to see how a decentralized world looks like? Go back to middle ages, there you will see.

[@ericfrank4991]

I was just talking to a friend about the situation in Oregon. How the coastal city areas have different values then the rural areas. The rural areas feel like they have zero representation and the states laws negatively affect their way of life. This video has impeccable timing, we need smaller units of power, not large nation states that grow in size. I think this is a good start to a whole new way of looking at how to govern humans and provide them the freedoms they wish to have.

[@fouresterofthetrees287]

Other states have this issue too. In Maryland, over 1/2 the population lives in Baltimore County. The Eastern Shore and western hills are at their mercy.

[@RRR-dv5yl]

Freedom is a natural state. It cannot be given, it can only be taken away. When no one takes away your freedom, you have freedom. Most of the Universe is ungoverned and therefore free. It doesn't require an army of officials or agencies to maintain it.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

This isn't a new problem. Look up razorfists video on Abraham Lincoln, as well as into the motivations connections and allegiances of the people being installed in western governments. They want to centralize power even more than it is, and for many, to a global scale in the model of China. Local was always better, (and more inclusive, to use a modern buzzword), but the amount of effort going to prevent this and centralize power more and more never sleeps, and plays dirtier than you can imagine.

[@chrismay2298]

Why do do many humans want to be "governed"? The base of the issue is right in front of people.

[@mattlittleton5137]

Look at california as well. I am a farmer in the central valley of California where my opinion is of no concern to the Hollywood elite who are drunk on power and control. Los Angeles and San Francisco's liberal elite are so far out of touch with reality its unbelievable. They continuously are scheming to figure out how to take more and more from us in the form of taxation and endless regulations that have nothing to do with reality or the way things actually work. They take as much as they can and return nothing as all of the taxes collected fund their cities to grow more and all of us are left impoverished in struggling communities trying to figure out how to survive on what little we have left. None of them have the slightest clue as to how our communities work yet they think they know everything and relentlessly continue to change laws and make a system that only benefit them and destroys us. They sit in their high rise apartments and chill all the time watching their televisions or go out to eat at all their fancy restaurants with their friends while we go out and work our asses off all day every day trying to keep our struggling communities and businesses afloat. The more luxury they enjoy means the more hardship we endure. All that time they have to chill means all the more time we have to work. They love this arrangement and are continuously trying to push it farther and farther as to have unlimited freedom to do as they please all day regardless of what hardship it means for us. The disconnect from individuals of communities that have nothing to do with them is where the problem of centralization lies. You cant rely on people from other communities who know nothing of the hardships you endure to make decisions that will benifit and promote growth for your community. The more power people attain the more it seems they lose empathy or care for others. Power doesnt corrupt all but it does corrupt some and thats the problem. Those "some"will always find a way to attain more power and that's how tyrrany becomes reality.

[@7uis7ara]

This type of content is risen on the internet lately. And I love it. This ideas are a threat to the status quo, the matrix, to the masters of puppets. It should be spread.

[@robertporter7808]

You sure it's grassroots ;)

[@coolbeans6148]

Im super happy its getting attention. Ive been pushing it for years.

[@squigglyarmz197]

This phenomenon has a name, Groupthink They're all wannabe libertarians, in love with the idea of it, wouldn't be so much in love in its practice.

[@egrytznr8893]

Wasn't methampphetamine the Master of Puppets? I think that's what James is talking about in the song. Anyways this is all a psy0p and the matrix isn't real, grow up All the best

[@greensorrel6860]

@@robertporter7808 no msm is

[@annariginalmake]

I literally was just talking to my son about this this morning. I reaLLy believe small, decentralised is the solution.

[@alexk48]

That's also known as "The third way" or "Distributism" . Don't let the name cause you to suspect that it is related to socialism in any way. In fact it involves more private property not less and emphasizes control over the fruits of one's own labor. G.K. Chesterton + Hillaire Belloc wrote about it as well as Pope Leo XIII. There is an economics textbook about Distributism in the 20th/ 21st century by Prof. Medaille.

[@benderbender1233]

🤙

[@thefidgetspinnerofdoom]

Funny that, I was just talking to my wife's son and we both agree that big government is the way to go.

[@celiacresswell6909]

I was talking to my son this morning and we both favour small state!

[@celiacresswell6909]

@@thefidgetspinnerofdoom I agree, but not for our species!

[@jesusguerrero8786]

Honestly, I prefer the guy who usually narrates the videos. As far as decentralization, ofc there is a better way, we just don't know what that way is. I would say in general smaller is better, but not in every case. Perhaps some subscription type service that extends beyond even geographic borders. You choose the sort of government you want from a set of alternatives and are able to change it if you don't like the result. There needs to be more competition to promote better outcomes.

[@anatineduo4289]

That is a very interesting model.

[@debanydoombringer1385]

Beyond geographic borders wouldn't work and would be impossible to enforce. Someone breaks the agreement, they're half the world away, and would face no consequences due to logistics. You'd have people living nextdoor to one another living by completely different societal rules. If your neighbor is in a group that human sacrifice is allowed but yours forbids it, there's nothing to prevent him from deciding you're who's to be the next sacrifice. I know that's an extreme example, but the point stands regardless of what example you use. They want to be nudist and strut all over the neighborhood that way subjecting their neighbors to things they didn't agree to.

[@alexandreaanderson514]

I agree with the first sentence. I wanna agree with your next point but Idk if I should. I shouldn't just blindly agree to something even if it makes sense or at least seems too.

[@peterj9351]

The content is, as always, excellent. But I must say I liked the usual presenter more. Hope he comes back!

[@rza2385]

1000% I had ti hit mute an subtitles when the second accent began...lol. great stuff though..

[@dayamitrasaraswati6276]

I like the usual presenter.

[@vv7299]

​@@rza2385 thanks for the suggestion. Narration is absolutely awful and cringe

[@ladyshaya]

I only minded the accents, it was distracting me from what he was saying ☹️

[@freedomfreedom6544]

@@rza2385 perfect. Thanks. I almost thought I’d have to miss one.

[@hax007]

Your voice is a part of this channels identity. Stay with it. / Keep up the good work!

[@samuellyman1968]

Agreed! This actor has a great talent but we miss your voice.

[@AM-dd8uf]

Yes, please do at least additional one with your voice. Thank you

[@EnFuego79]

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I would help donate to have this voice over redone and have this re-released. The topic is too important to have such a contrived aesthetic turn off any "normies" one attempts to present this to.

[@luckyone7878]

Careful that channel does not have a blue check mark ...

[@FourOf92000]

Agreed, though the cross-pollination with Clifton Duncan (who's pretty based-sacrificed a stage career for his principles) is pretty neat imo, so I think we can give him a pass

[@hawks5999]

The fact that this would work and spread power out to more people is precisely why the people who currently have the power will not allow this happen.

[@Philosophaster]

There has to be tangible positive and immediate incentives built into a structure

[@AZKathy07]

States created the federal government. States have more power than the Fed. States can secede from the Union. It's well within our right.

[@cooperyoung1928]

@@Philosophaster like Sunday night football, and school's one can ditch their kids at.

[@kangarooninja2594]

@@viktorhumanities Right, we just need to organize some kind of large centralized power to combat them... oh wait.

[@kangarooninja2594]

@@viktorhumanities Sure, you can bring down your own central authority. With what I assume is some kind of nihilistic revolution, where there's no central authority of your own to act as leadership. But that only creates a power vacuum. All you do is create an exposed throat for some hungry warlord or outside organization to establish a new authority. Like it or not, we're stuck with central authority. No idealism is going to change that reality. You're just going to have to work to make what you have better. Or, you know, just piss in the wind while things get progressively worse.

[@fouresterofthetrees287]

I appreciate AOI trying to keep things fresh. The guest narrator's regular voice sounded good, but when he tried to mimic the accents of the quoted authors, it came off rather cartoonish.

[@marcel_bendaly]

This^

[@SaudBako]

I loved the accents 🤣

[@subversivevermin9213]

Another great video! Although I might skip the forced accents while reading from these passages...

[@Vicky-ke4es]

True man, I find it a bit cringy

[@AlecMuller]

Cringe is one aspect, but for me the bigger issue is having to listen harder (and slow down the playback speed) to follow it. Both the early and new narrator voices are fine in their natural (non-accented) states.

[@sonicleaves]

The accents made this video unwatchable.

[@BULLTRONHERO]

Yes, it made this feel like a kid's channel.

[@rando5673]

The biggest problem to overcome is the fact that if you're not in an empire, you'll be crushed by one. Imagine Oregon trying to defend itself against the entirety of China

[@Juck_The_Fews]

Can you imagine the remnants of the US government if everything splintered? They'd be relentless in clawing their power back.

[@taramoon9307]

Not really. Nothing prevents areas around you from aiding you. They probably won't want dog shit countries like china taking hold near them.

[@RegulusOrigin]

Yes. It raises the question - can you have one massive, benevolent “empire” that allows all of these experimental states to exist within it, and plays arbitrator if there are egregious conflicts?

[@kangarooninja2594]

@@RegulusOrigin Of course not. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Every attempt at communism has proven this. Even if you have some well-meaning group leading the revolution, there will always be the unscrupulous megalomaniacal tyrants ready to step in afterward to stab them in the back and seize power. You'd have to be a tyrant to hold on to that power just to fight the onslaughts of coup attempts, lol.

[@werren894]

@@RegulusOrigin ancient egypt already did that i guess they have a philosopher but not as famous as the greek one

[@yhistory2688]

Carry on we admire your efforts

[@alohi79]

Complexity Theory, which is the best mathematical tool we currently have to study complex systems, points to decentralization being the solution. Centralization yields greater efficiency at the cost of more fragility to things like food shortages, political corruption, epidemics, etc. Sadly, once a system becomes too centralized, it usually takes some sort of catastrophe to reverse it.

[@tuckerbugeater]

And who would be causing this decentralization?

[@Philosophaster]

Do you have any good links about that theory applying to society or politics?

[@Philosophaster]

​@@tuckerbugeater centralized decentralizers of course

[@alohi79]

@Philosophaster most ppls starting off point is "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb. He has 5 books on complexity theory and its applications. For something directly about economics, there's 'The Economy As an Evolving Complex System II". Not sure about books about Complexity applied to politics. That specific application is pretty new, so the best place to look is probably journals. I listen to interviews and podcasts all day at work and there are some that talk about it, but I couldn't tell you when or where.

[@alohi79]

@Philosophaster the basic fundamental principle, is that efficiency (centralization) and anti-fragility (decentralization) are inversely related. For example, when we breed dogs for specific traits, they become more efficient at doing what they're bread for, but the are at a higher risk of health complications, whereas mixed breed dogs will be more resilient to those defects... they're more 'Anti fragile"

[@projectterranova]

Much love to ya'll. Stay strong, keep getting better every day, and do what needs to be done whether you feel like it or not.

[@bradchambers5886]

The 50 States were supposed to be individual, mostly autonomous countries united by and defended by a minimally powerful federation.

[@Hyderagean]

Totally for grouping like minded individuals together. Makes it easier to see what works and what doesn't.

[@haniamritdas4725]

That ironically has been shown not to work. A healthy society needs a variety of thinkers and thoughts, a variety of everything, to function well. Making "like-minded" communities the standard is setting up Thought Police as the gatekeepers!

[@Philosophaster]

Lol! The sheer irony of that statement- even though I think I see your greater point. I think what's so ironic is that it's the same thing in the micro and macro scale. It's a matter of scale. Groupthink at a small level and groupthink at an organized level are insanely dangerous

[@alexk48]

@@haniamritdas4725 Not true. Immigrant communities in the US thrived in smaller self contained neighborhoods. So did Black Wall Street. Smaller self supporting communities within larger cities or states had no lack of variety of thinkers or thoughts. In fact most of our inventors came from such communities. Greater self governance with greater individual participation encouraged autonomy. The current concept of diversity is quite superficial and is leading to authoritarianism.

[@haniamritdas4725]

@@alexk48 Well I am sorry to point out that the belief that a culture is made up of "like-minded" people because they share the same ethnicity is called racism. Ethnicity does not mean uniformity, unless you count melting pots that turn dead bodies into the glue of society by forced conformity. But that is not culture, it's social tyranny.

[@egrytznr8893]

@@alexk48 LoL

[@paulus4734]

In The Netherlands this is put into practice by an organization named Society 4.0.

[@coolbeans6148]

Im intrested

[@bogdanstar3058]

Some say power creates corruption, but I think it's more accurate to say "the desire to get away with corruption creates power". The less power, the less the corruption

[@SergioLeonardoCornejo]

Exactly. Corrupt people are attracted to power. Just like flies are attracted to food. The notion of power creating corruption is like the notion of rotting meat creating flies.

[@tuckerbugeater]

Corruption can easily exist between two individuals.

[@bogdanstar3058]

@@tuckerbugeater yes, and the more people someone has power over the more corruption they can get away with.

[@anatineduo4289]

power attracts the corrupt

[@adel19997]

aka small government, local reach & direct contact

[@Jadstar1]

I've been waiting my whole life for this discussion. Thank you all.

[@Zevelyon]

The one important oversight of this argument: decentralization requires a sufficient population of strong men. Centralized systems are superior at managing an animalistic, degenerate populace. Hence why it always manifests as animalistic and degenerate itself.

[@巫轟]

Centralized states are not superior at managing a degenerate populace, it creates them. It selects for maladaptive high time preference behavior because the state can take anything from you at any time i.e How the state use inflation to steal from you and encourage spending. This of course make people more dependent on the state to get ahead, so its a win for the state as well. Decentralized structures selects for low-time preference behavior, that is because ones work is not undermined by centralized bureaucracy and justice is carried out by the local community and by the individual, which also create a strict sense of ritual propriety that enables high trust between individuals.

[@dreisiglps2451]

​@@巫轟 Yeah sure, but do you support a government?

[@cigh7445]

​@@巫轟 Yes exactly. The death of small communities coincided with an increase in crime rates. Small tight knit communities are bound by the norms of those communities

[@anchorthesun3438]

@@巫轟 social policy is what selects for maladaptive personalities not centralized society , this is pure cope on your part

[@anchorthesun3438]

@@巫轟 why not use this “local community “ model on a larger scale and actually have a powerful nation ? There is literally zero reason this cannot be done

[@frannypack007]

I love these videos and hope to see many more to come. I didn't care much for the different little voices given to the authors in the narration, but it's an interesting idea to keep things fresh. Clifton did a great job overall though. Keep up the good work

[@justinclark615]

I'm in favor of no governments. I don't need a ruler over me. No one does. Voluntarism is the only way to thrive.

[@martinhofseth1869]

lol

[@tuckerbugeater]

You can be ruled over by bots.

[@justinclark615]

@@tuckerbugeater they're pushing for that it seems.

[@justinclark615]

@Squishy_Oppai I respectfully disagree. Society is just indoctrinated to think it needs government, by design. People that desire power over others aren't willing to help people think independent of them and their systems of control. People can live without it, they just don't know it.

[@Catthepunk]

@Squishy_Oppai you don't need government for community tbf.

[@Alexk20066]

There is one big flaw in this approach. Actually this flaw makes this ideas a fiction. The problem is geography. Not all places on earth can manifest small regional powers because they can’t produce enough resources due to geographical realities. For examples unfarmable areas, populations in that area most depend on other regions for foods, and the others may be dependent on some local resource they have. A web of codependence relationships makes this beneficial and a country can emerge.

[@OneRadicalDreamer]

I love this idea, but I always question human corruptibility. How long before micro wars begin to occur because a few small countries want more or feel slighted?

[@Gabrhil]

That is the reason global centralization became more popular over the centuries, isn't it? Swish swish goes the pendulum.

[@hoonterofhoonters6588]

As opposed to the wars constantly waged by large countries.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@Gabrhil Don't try to forcibly change people and you won't have conflict. But some just can't help themselves.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@hoonterofhoonters6588 Why are those wars waged?

[@Philosophaster]

​@@tuckerbugeater do you think that question too easily falls into vague and ineffective generalizations about The Human Condition?

[@bluebird6]

Decentralization is not the solution to greed, tyranny, perversion and ignorance. Only the virtues of selflessness, kindness, wisdom can solve the problems of this world. What is missing is basic morality.

[@tuckerbugeater]

Whose morality?

[@corvus400]

@@tuckerbugeater Objective morality.

[@badmen1550]

I'd go a step further than that and say what's missing is God. Without morality and God it's guaranteed that humanity will backslide into a debased form of nature; more apelike than what we would consider human.

[@bluebird6]

@@badmen1550 exactly! God’s creation would not survive if it was not for the divine cosmic moral laws that rule our universe. beauty and harmony reign supreme in everything.

[@fusion9619]

How'd that work out for the Catholic church in the middle ages?

[@oriancunningham]

I was just having this exact conversation yesterday.

[@tuckerbugeater]

About being a slave under a technocratic state? Hope you don't die like the Ukrainians.

[@lewisfruen5648]

Always impressed by the videos Pal, I hope you never stop

[@johnbaylor6222]

I was speaking to my daughter of this exact subject, the day this video was uploaded. Excellent video and I agree smaller is better and needs to be the case going into the future.

[@Alan0000able]

Or you like most of Americans could open up a history book for once in your life and learn about medieval Europe history for example.

[@eeva1475]

Mr. Duncan's voice is very well trained; his voice is sophisticated. Even if the changes in speaking style didn't always go with a natural flow, I think he did really well! Doing something new is always a learning process. Edit: Listening to this made me think that I should get over my feelings of shyness & read more poetry & prose aloud. It would be good voice training! Singing is good, too.

[@dheeraj_one]

I found his alternative accents that he used for different authors very funny..😅

[@FaustLimbusCompany]

What would happen if an alliance of separate decentralized states unify into a larger centralized state, and go on a conquest on its neighbors, like what we saw with the rise of the Roman Empire?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

The roman empire did not go on a rampage gobbling up small states. It mostly gobbled up large states. Infact small states proved the hardest for it to conquer. And it eventually decentralised in order to cope with defending itself against moadlty small stated which consumed it. (the ottomans were tiny for example when they crippled and conquered eastern Rome)

[@Butterkin]

Well, it still lasted longer and worked better than what we have now. Even Rome is preferable to a nation of well over 300 million people being ruled over by 10-50,000 government representatives and their employees.

[@metamorphosis_77]

Your content is fire lately. 🔥

[@jedjedjedjedjedjed]

Long-time fan of the channel (been watching for nearly a decade or so), and I recommend this channel to people all the time. I like the original voice so much better than this new voice. Hope all is well!

[@anthonytelles2226]

Love the idea of distributed politics and distinct regions; there’s in fact an entire economic theory based on it championed by thinkers like Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc: distributism (also sometimes called localism). The basic idea is the same. We should prioritize the local-families, then neighborhoods, cities, counties, etc.-as well as local culture, politics, and businesses over huge national corporate chains or large scale governance that doesn’t have boots on the ground to properly govern. We need to return to a true republic where communities are rooted in a specific sense of place. Wendell Berry is excellent on this as well. This already has gained traction on the left (due to the perceived environmental benefits), but it should be a source of common ground for conservatives as well if they want true freedom and democracy. Strong towns and cities that are as self sufficient as possible (with property spread out among families, not in a destructive socialist way that involves taking away property and redistributing it, but through prioritizing small ownership of productive property and a shared commons) seems like a movement most people could get behind.

[@EvanMantri]

This video explains these issues in a way that is also accessible to leftist city-dwellers: The City State Solution: How to Avoid a Civil War or National Secession in These Dis-United States kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2WVaKaXi5iDiNU

[@ziraprod6090]

WOW! We should write a constitution based on this.... and ... and... a bill of rights. Yea... yer smrt.

[@almibry]

It's really hard for me to focus on the content when a full grown adult is making weird voices like that 😂 I can tell he's very talented, but the "storytime" voices combined with a serious subject just cracks me up.

[@aasifazimabadi786]

I am so glad that I am not the only one that thought this. I find it kind of distracting and I had to mute the video so I could focus. It just seems a bit over the top, and it does not give the philosophy the respect (not respect per se, but moreover some combination of focus and seriousness) it deserves. This is not (or at least should not be) some theatrical performance for us to get the most out of the material. Otherwise, it's kind of cringeworthy.

[@Living_Connectedness]

Incredibly distracting - my mind went to all sorts of places other than what he was quoting.

[@romanasmunovas2285]

I really liked the natural voice of the actor, but not when he started reading the quotes! Amazing video as always

[@rumhound5903]

Y'all need to read up on feudal Japan, The history of Swiss cantons, native American tribal warfare. Noon of those systems lasted long because of separation and differing opinions on existence. The longest lasting societies in recorded history outlasted the small tribalism. Egyptian, Roman, Japan after self conquest, and the English throne.

[@fusion9619]

But the point wasn't to last a long time. They fought for their values and their independence. Who cares if people in a thousand years are impressed by how unchanging your state is? The state is fundamentally a criminal organization.

[@cooperyoung1928]

I don't know how many times I've given this exact speech from this video to my wife. It all seems plainly obvious to me. The problem is convincing the masses who have already been convinced by the authority's. Most have already constructed there own little illusionary world to distract themselves from such considerations and flaws with the system. People would rather have their Sunday night football than have to get off the couch and make the difference. Perusing such a society, a society worth existing in, first requires its potential occupants to take drastic action against those that currently hold the power and cultural influence. This requires sacrificing all the perceived benefits of the society that already exists, most of which make up the bulk of the excuses as to why we should keep society as it is (stagnant). With this mindset having been adopted by a majority of the population, anyone who dares point out the flaws of the current society, or attempts to express the idea of a better way of living, instantly becomes the adversary. Attempting to bring peoples awareness to the "elephant in the room" ruins the party for those trying to live a lie, thus they must be punished, exiled, or made an example of. In the end we are not fighting the authorities or the ruling class, but rather the human condition of a gullible and lazy populace.

[@AT-os6nb]

excellent and needed content for this sick society we currently live in

[@2Meals]

End The Federal Reserve

[@johnquestel4852]

A great idea. One problem not addressed: what to do about corporate entities that require economies of scale from becoming too powerful? What about financial power... the banking interest? Those entities could easily overpower and corrupt smaller states... as has happened many times in the past with even the most powerful and centralized state.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Corperations prefure enlarge states to small states. Its easier to lobby and control 1 large state than multiple small ones. It's why Corperations pushed and continue to push for the increase in power of the federal governemnt in the US, and push for the EU to be more centralised and unified (openly starting they want a united states of Europe). The more states the more rules the Corperations have to adhire to. Smilar stories with banks. When states were small and decentalised banks were weak. Its only with the rise of the large nation state that banks became truely powerful.

[@allmivoyses]

Growing up in Vermont where every year we had "town meetings" to air grievances, voice opinions, and chart our towns course. It was great, except for when a vocal minority took over.

[@JonathanBell-xl4dl]

here's a theory: this also applies to military brotherhood, when close bonds are formed between the men in a small unit, usually at most 30 to 60 soldiers. it's a sort of decentralization, if you will.

[@xANTHQNY]

Decentralisation is built into the modern military, orders trickle down but there room for input at each level of the heirarchy. A Lt. doesn't have to ask permission to give orders if he sees fit, hes like the mayor of the tribe of a dozen or so. In our society however it goes MP (10k people ) Mayor (~100k people) -> Prime minister (60 million) and none but the very top can make real decisions, and they can only do it slowly then theyre changed after a dozen decisions.

[@JonathanBell-xl4dl]

@@xANTHQNY and sometimes they get to make bad decisions with no consequences.

[@daltanionwaves]

I wish he would narrate in his natural voice only, as it has the similar sort of timber and precision that makes Thomas Sowell so pleasant to listen to. Especially at bed time.

[@loriayres5037]

Exactly what the founders intended

[@sapinva]

Short answer: of course yes. But centralized power will never allow it. I like the guest narrator, very well done.

[@samuelclemens3290]

"Academy of ideas " is undoubtedly in my top 3 channels on KZbin

[@PariahPsypomp6775]

I wish to live in a world where people who do not like me, and those I find unfavorable, can live peaceful lives and self-actualize. The only way to do this is through decentralization.

[@ALightToSeeBy]

Accented English is for a joke, not for a serious video. But that’s just my decentralised opinion.

[@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns]

In the Australian context, I believe we have got some things right. We have generally good sized states that centre on the coast capital city and incorporate the rural country that feeds it. (The only real exceptions are the NSW-Queensland border, which is too far north; and the lack of a North Queensland State or Territory). But what I think should be done is that each State Parliament should have sub- or Provincial Parliaments within it, with State MPs effectively having a double mandate, so that for certain areas of government, the role of the State Government would be devolved to the Provincial Parliaments. (In NSW these provinces could be Greater Sydney-Illawarra; Hunter-Central Coast; Mid North Coast; South Coast; Murrumbidgee-Murray, etc, and similar divisions could follow as appropriate for each state plus NT). The State would *not* become a federation within a federation. The State Parliament would be supreme in determining the level of devolution/autonomy that each province would have. But perhaps the NSW Upper House could be structured so as to give say a 1/3rd equal sized loading to each province, which would benefit the smaller, poorer, rural provinces, at the minor expense of the capital city province, in order to encourage greater devolution/autonomy where the rural provinces insist upon it, without giving them a Bjelke-Petersen level gerrymander. (The other 2/3rds of the Upper House would be proportionally sized to population). This is how I see how we can answer this question somewhat without completely ripping away a rich region from a poor region within the same country. The United States should *not* call it a day. But perhaps it's 50 states could be grouped into 8 (4 x 2; lat vs long) reasonably self governing federated countries within a confederated republic so that California doesn't dominate Alaska, Texas doesn't dominate Montana, Florida doesn't dominate Maine and New York doesn't dominate Hawaii.

[@fusion9619]

I don't think New York will be dominating Hawaii anytime soon. But I thought it was interesting during covid, when Australia had the covid c0ncentration camps, and someone escaped and they had helicopters and army dudes with dogs searching for him. Whatever Australia is, it's not an example to follow.

[@demigodluis]

Stay the course. Keep moving forward.

[@khemirimonem6001]

We need a world in which psychopaths and narcissistics are detected and prevented from escalating the ladder of power and decision , whether centralized or not

[@christianborgelt8318]

Clifton Duncan is good! I like how he, as a trained actor, manages to distinguish the people that are being quoted by different manners of speaking and different accents.

[@beenschmokin]

This channel is not entertainment. Voice acting is entertainment. This is a serious issue of monumental proportions and the faux accents make it a joke at best.

[@vladanlausevic1733]

Interesting and thoughtful video. I think that decentralisation as via network states is possible to integrate with united world planetary federalism because even decentralised communities need a global level democracy and governance

[@espada9]

Thomas Sowell describes this idea in his book "A conflict of visions"

[@arminxvs3372]

"Smaller entities work better"? The Balkan states send their greetings. "Cultural wars in the few hundreds of states"... well imagine the chaos with 1000 states. We should unite more as a species, not divide into tribes again.

[@johnsharpe6411]

It seems the "national divorce" spoken of in the US recently is very possibly a good start in the direction of decentralization. In fact the US started with the intention of decentralization but has drifted from it's original design. Returning to a republic of 50 equal but autonomous entities would reverse many of the worse aspects of recent tyrannical federal government overreach.

[@raven-sf3di]

I was just thinking about America and gun control, it would be so much easier that Americans who hate guns to live in their own state and those who want guns to live in another, rather than arguing about it non stop

[@fusion9619]

Basically US States should be states, as they originally were, not provinces, as they now are.

[@AscendantPhilosophy]

Heavy global bureaucracy breeds complacency, but localized areas come at the cost of trade. Ultimately, having to deal with the different procedures of every other system might cause a new form of bureaucracy, defeating the point of locality. With our current world system excessively reliant on global trade (for good reason), the implications of localization could be unpredictable.

[@gerardbechard5881]

Totally agree and have said this myself years ago.

[@gregoryvigneault1824]

A wonderful example of community triumphing over states is the first Hussite war in Bavaria during which communities with a shared belief banded together to resist and defeat basically every world power around them who wanted to persecute them as heretics.

[@samthephilosophystudent5782]

Yes, I've been thinking the same thing for months now

[@bryanhaycock672]

Bravo Mr. Duncan!

[@kalpeshmore1847]

Its today that I realised, I am not attracted to your channel just for the content but also in the way its presented from the optimum use of graphics and citations to the neutrality in your voice that really makes me more attuned to listening deeply. But this particular episode i felt Mr. Duncan was trying to adorn different accents and modulations through out which was not very comfortable for me as it was taking my attention away from what they were sayin to how they were saying. And now i am sitting with this question of what about the tone in the voice and their modulations have an effect on me.

[@Catthepunk]

The fakeness I suspect.

[@A-2-The-J]

Great video. I've been reading a lot of Murray Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism / Communalism. So this is right up my street

[@dreisiglps2451]

I also know other good authors. John Stossel, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Murray Newton Rothbard, Robert Higgs, Henry Hazlitt, Walter E Williams, Robert Patrick Murphy, Friedrich August von Hayek, Carl Menger, Böhm von Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas E Woods Jr, Larken Rose, Thomas James Dilorenzo, Stephan Kinsella, David D. Friedman

[@seansmith3058]

Good for a laugh. 🤡

[@brianbachmeier34]

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help." 😕

[@tuckerbugeater]

Are you excited for your genofence prison system and virus testing checkpoint? LOL. You're so screwed.

[@altonsafe]

This video are my thoughts exactly. Thank you for visualizing this.

[@TheDailyMemesShow]

In decentralization lives on the spirit of Libertarianism 💯

[@danielfigueroa6409]

Liberalism was a core component in forming the modern nation state. Libertarians may superficially root for decentralization, localism,l, etc..But in practice l, the core ideological foundations of libertarianism (liberalism and capitalism) have lead to massive centralization.

[@lynnex17]

​@@danielfigueroa6409 what do you base this opinion on? How is practicing the non aggression principle a road to central power?

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@danielfigueroa6409 Yeah, so the bankers can rule while the peasants live in survival mode.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@lynnex17 The non aggression principle is the road to slavery. LOL

[@lynnex17]

@@tuckerbugeater non aggression doesn't mean you don't have boundaries and actively defend them. It means you don't initiate violence.

[@richardbuckharris189]

"They do not want to know that centralization is not only the death-knell of liberty, but also of health and beauty, of art and science, all these being impossible in a clock-like, mechanical atmosphere." ~ Emma Goldman

[@shenrr6802]

- Saying that historical example is better is dangerous. Commonly dying of infection is also historical. - Polarization exist at all levels, the negativity comes from how it's handled. - Bigger governments also have economies of scale. Separation and repetition of political power decreases the resources available to improve people wellbeing. - a completely decentralized nation landscape is like a "free market" of nations, that tends to competition and consolidation in direction of monopolies. - Smaller units of disjointed organization are move vulnerable to external threats and therefore have negative selection pressure. - In a way they say big nations can go into totalitarianism fast and unexpectedly, but then say that big nations are by default slow and hard to change I think this line of thinking is mixing human civilization scale stuff with wider organizational structures. Big nations need to be representative and balanced. You can have a sick or a healthy political system in a nation. It seems to me to focus on the wrong thing

[@billprep1855]

out of curiosity, which nations currently have a 'healthy' political system?

[@anatineduo4289]

Good considerations, but it can also be said that large organizations usually devolve into bureaucracies that have as their primary purpose the perpetuation of their bureaucracies. As far as economies of scale, if I give $20 as charity to someone who needs it, that's 100% efficient, but if I give it to a large charity, most of the money goes to administration.

[@giemess]

Thank you man, being dying to find one single comment down here with valid and good counter points to the video. You gave me hope!

[@shenrr6802]

@@billprep1855 it's hard to praise because as humanity we aren't very good at it yet, but from what I've heard Denmark is pretty good at it.

[@shenrr6802]

@@anatineduo4289 yes, I would say the bigger the organization the higher the maintenance cost, in general. The benefit would come from pooling resources together, not from 0 cost running. If you have an unbalanced towards a bigger political machinery than you need, it will be a waste of resources

[@rothbardfreedom]

The name for this idea is Anarco-capitalism. Suggested readings: "Ethics of Liberty", by Murray Rothbard. "The Production of Private Defense", by Hans Hopee. "Democracy: The God that Failed", by Hans Hoppe.

[@flexotaify]

As always, excellent content! These videos should be used in every school in the US and around the world

[@sergicrisan5564]

And yet I wonder... Wasn't unification of smaller states that allowed longer periods of peace, since there's strenght in numbers. Also, more territory tends to imply more ressources. Not gonna get too long, but I believe it's unity that has given us the jump to modern medicine, foods and industries.

[@GregoXWK4225]

It seems to me that this cycle is unavoidable. A totalitarian world followed by chaos and later by a decentralized world with significantly less people.

[@homefrontforge]

Good summation.

[@finaldaylight3804]

Whats interesting is that even in the bible has this idea. When all the people gathered together and wanted to build a large city (tower of babel), he scattered them by creating new languages..so the people would group each other according to the language they spoke, and that way instead of having one big community, smaller communities were formed

[@bestpossibleworld2091]

As was demonstrated through the visuals, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel remains the key paradigm of the natural order of decentralization. Two things are noteworthy. St. Paul reinforced the principle encapsulated in the Babel story when he addressed the Athenians (Acts 17). His point was that God opposes massive centralized governments. This can be understood as a feature of human nature as well as an insight from religion. Human nature seeks freedom and not the shackles of governments. Secondly, (again learned from the Babel story) elites covet massive government control in order to "rule all mankind" and be god-like. This only produces catastrophe. Elites must be opposed.

[@fusion9619]

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to listen to Acts again. I've always had this feeling that Christianity requires us to be revolutionaries, and we should always oppose the state if Christianity is to have any meaning for the world. Paul had to be careful with what he said because the Romans were reading his letters.

[@aubreyekstrom8919]

I have given a lot of thought to what would be a better system that what we have today. Especially since it seems obvious to me that our current systems across the world don't appear to be fixable, or even worth fixing. I pretty much have come to the same conclusion as what is presented here. I appreciate the historical context and the details and eloquence of the sources quoted for fleshing this out more fully than I had in my own mind. The question still remains. How do we get there from here? Those who have the most power, benefit the most from the status quo, and so have no incentive to change it. Instead they are increasingly building the mechanisms, from censorship and control of the narrative, to surveillance and oppression of decent and suppression of alternative narratives, to increasingly militarized police forces, and even killer robots, in what is obviously their resistance to any change in the status quo... and their willingness to employ violence, even extreme violence, to crush any such effort. My own conclusion is that the current world order will have to collapse before any real change can happen. Then, and then only, assuming enough of humanity survives, can we start over from scratch and hopefully build something along the lines discussed here, that is more compatible with civil society, cooperation, collective and individual freedom and a more harmonious, peaceful and prosperous world that benefits most if not all people and life on the planet in general. The good news, and the bad news, is... The collapse of the current paradigm seems inevitable.

[@reecenaidu6020]

unfortunately, resources are not equally distributed in the world, and with no centralisation, there would be no one to stop 'small' regions from expanding and conquering to get the resources they need/want. We always need a balance in all things, especially politics. Right now, perhaps people need a little more involvement, but complete decentralisation is extreme.

[@fusion9619]

Bitcoin fixes this.

[@reecenaidu6020]

@@fusion9619 Interesting. Please elaborate

[@fusion9619]

@@reecenaidu6020 it solves that problem in two ways - first, it's unlikely any state will be able raise the money to attack another state if they can't steal from their citizenry. Since there are infinite ways to hide or disguise your keys, the state will not be able to tax people if they use Bitcoin, unless the purpose of the tax is so obviously good that people choose to pay it. (Side note: just that alone should make it clear that our current formulation of democracy is broken - we're all being forced to do/pay for things that we wouldn't vote for) Furthermore, since the cap on the amount of Bitcoin can't be changed (21 million BTC [ 1 BTC = 100 million sats, and can be divided more when needed]), that means if the state goes deeply into debt, it won't be able to use inflation to reduce the real value of it's debts. When Bitcoin is the commonly accepted money, any government that spends into a deficit will basically be committing suicide, and will immediately lose all legitimacy from the perspective of both its citizens and its creditors. Between these two forces, we begin a process of de-escalation and move towards actual peace in the world without all states being armed to the teeth. And without that huge expenditure (war/defense), the money that the state can collect from a willing populace can be put more into the services that we need. There are even more reasons, but I think my reply is already pretty long. Probably the most important thing about it is, it can't be stopped.

[@reecenaidu6020]

@@fusion9619 What if the people agree with leaders to expand and gain more land and resources?

[@fusion9619]

@@reecenaidu6020 even that has limits. First, I'd say people never agree with that, and the state has to put a lot of resources into gaining support or neutralizing opposition using mass media. But even if one group goes full fascist crazy, nothing gains the support of the people like defense when you're attacked. I think it probably will happen, and it'll be a test to see people can handle it voluntarily. And considering that Bitcoin can be transmitted anywhere at the speed of light with final settlement and it's impossible to stop transactions, if one country is under attack, I think people from everywhere in the world will donate to their defense. Basically, asymmetric encryption gives an overwhelming advantage to the defender, and money based on asymmetric encryption gives an overwhelming advantage to defenders at both the individual and geopolitical level.

[@St.Raptor]

This is what the founding fathers knew, they wanted states and counties to do most of the lawmaking. But they also wanted a fed to implement certain things like growing a military, security of God given rights, etc...

[@kennethferrari1342]

What stops decentralized states from creating deep alliances and other alliances with ideological differences? The USA tried to mix decentralization with a moderate federal government; however, the complexity of the interactions of such a union with the world, as well as itself, caused it to become the behemoth it is now. It is why the European Union grows power to rival it. It seems to me like centralization and decentralization is a dynamic process that flows back and fourth.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

I'd argue that it wasn't organic complexity, but rather folks deliberately seizing power and centralizing causing the complexity for their own gain.

[@fusion9619]

The real reason the federal government got all the power is that they control the money. Once the dollar wasn't backed by gold, there was no limit to federal spending, and so the power dynamic shifted - where before, the states collected taxes and spent the money, now the states happily accept as much money as they can get from the federal government. So the key is the money. We have to use a money that no government can create. That's how we fix democracy, and in the process we'll decentralize.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@fusion9619 That's certainly part of it. A big part. But probably not the whole picture.

[@roshan8853]

If there were many small states, then a group of states conquered by one state would then have much larger resources to continue expanding. It seems inevitable that large states will grow and form, and then crumble at some point. Multiple small states is unstable. Also, somewhere like Europe at the moment is already a collection of states of similar size; it's relative. Sources: 'Ultrasociety', 'Historical Dynamics' - P. Turchin.

[@JesseP.Watson]

Thanks for this insightful talk.

[@Michaelmas68]

Very very very important message so please drop the guest presenter it’s distracting turning off the volume constantly. Plus, the original gentleman from this channel is the one people return to here it’s part of the dynamic of KZbin.

[@thenew4559]

Decentralization is definitely preferable to nation-states, however it's only a temporary solution to the problem of the consolidation of power. As long as you recognize the right of a certain group of people (the state) to rule over others (the citizens), they will be incentivized to accumulate greater power and control over time. Constitutions and political constraints can maybe slow this down a little, but rulers will always come up with justifications to circumvent limitations, just as we've seen in the United States in the two and a half centuries since its founding. The US started its life as perhaps the most radical modern experiment in decentralization and limited government, yet the federal government still ballooned into one of the largest bureaucracies in history.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Well yes but actually no. No to the us being the most decentralised modern state. The UK had a much smaller government between the 1840s and 1910s. So small infact it was mocked as a 'night watchmen state'. But you are right that people try and accumulate power. The best method is balanceing the power between several competing insttutions/classes. The longest lasting decentralised systems did this well. The problem in america (and infact in medieval Europe for example) is events took place which were used to justify the unbalancing of the system which resulted in the march to centrilisation picking up speed.

[@thenew4559]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 perhaps the US wasn't the smallest government, but I'd still argue it was the most decentralized, due to the nature of the federal system and state/local governments originally having authority over most matters. The states were even regarded like little mostly-independent countries for a while. As for the second point, I believe it's inevitable that governments will find excuses to justify grabbing more power. Even if there aren't any major wars or invasions, they can always create some sort of domestic ideological conflict (class war, race war, gender war, geographic splits, etc), or use another major problem to demand more power (such as we've seen with climate change and the pandemic). Decentralization and systems of checks and balances may help slow this down, but if it can happen to a nation like the US with such a system then it can happen anywhere.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@thenew4559 fair point of view on which is the smallest. As for it happening everywhere what I meant is it happens everywhere, but it only happens fast when they can justify it which isn't always constant. Centralisation is like corruption, its always going to happen to some extent.

[@patricksmith308]

love whenever you upload but your voice is what made me stick hopefully it doesn't change permanently

[@iam4iamWe]

Brilliant video. Agreed. Decentralization can be a deterrent against agression.

[@tuckerbugeater]

It's a weakening of any resistance to tyranny.

[@OrthoHoppean]

@Squishy_Oppai Except the Soviet Union couldn't prevent breaking up into small states, nor could the British empire prevent the US

[@OrthoHoppean]

@@tuckerbugeater Right..... because the US suffered weakened resistance to tyranny right after its secession from the British empire

[@cyberpunkfalangist2899]

@@OrthoHoppean Ask the Holy Roman Empire how well they fared against Napoleon

[@AtlasGrinned]

The Downside is the ability to unify to face off against a larger gathering of people that seek to conquer.

[@dominicperez3777]

Us libertarians have been advocating for decentralization for a long time. We prefer less government in our lives.

[@tuckerbugeater]

Libertarians and anarchists live in a fantasy world that only be made real through surveillance technologies.

[@marmite0069]

I feel the narrator of this particular video really detracts away from the subject matter with the changing accents etc....would love to see the video remade with the usual narrator, they're a big part of why I love this channel so much

[@cjfredi]

Definitely not as cool without the usual narrators voice IMHO.

[@anonkarma2.027]

Magnificent. Perfect description of local governance and its critical meaning. It’s description of Real Republic. Heart touching accuracy 🙏🏻

[@AR-tb9hq]

the only issue becomes - if those city states that choose totalitarianism (fascism, socialism, etc) by nature will require military expansionism.

[@haniamritdas4725]

That's why history repeats. We have learned the same lessons from the same mistakes forever. I guess it's called having a life. Growing up. Something like that.

[@apersononlineyes6554]

It's much harder for those states to expand though if they're small.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@haniamritdas4725 History rhymes. It doesn't repeat. So the solution to technocrats with ai, drones, bioweapons, weather warfare, etc. Is to run away? LOLOLLOLOOLOOL

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@apersononlineyes6554 Your life will be like Ready Player One. Because you refuse to think and take action.

[@haniamritdas4725]

@@tuckerbugeater Run away? I don't think I said anything like that. But if you can get away from something trying to kill you by running away from it, I do recommend that strategy now that you mention it. But I see nowhere to run from all that. I choose to just go on with my life without worrying about things I cannot control. In any case, it either will or won't be what we fear that kills us. Does that matter? Not to me. Life itself is repetition, recapitulation. Every child learns the same lessons. You can split hairs over that if you want, of course.

[@JeffD-z3g]

decentralization would decrease the efficiency of the provision of resources covering a contiguous territory, therefore disallowing growth in human living standards that we have seen since the formation of centralized states. you are suggesting that we wait in line and rely on a artisan to make our tables rather than organizing specialized human labour to mass produce tables for everyone to use.

[@dantesinferno9circlesofHELL]

This guy's voice is not what I'm used to so it's throwing me off topic quite a bit but of course the smaller you can keep political issues and government, the less chance of corruption.

[@gentkamberi8533]

Please bring previous speaker back 😊

[@jeremygibbins5086]

I am a firm believer in a Confederacy, decentralized, power stays in the hands of the people, with common morals/values, and a return to common law.

[@fusion9619]

Unfortunately, the bankers invaded the confederacy, and I don't doubt they'll attack again if we try again. I'd still try, though.

[@matthewoates4656]

Although I can see how this might prevent the rise of tyrannies, I can't help but wonder how it would *defend* against already established tyrannies. In other words, wouldn't small autonomous states be ill prepared and coordinated to fight against something like a blitzkrieg (which just about rolled up all of Europe)?

[@Philosophaster]

Precisely, that's what I want to know because power is a positive feedback loop and so smaller states banding together and splitting up the benefits they conquered is a natural strength of any system, much less any organism or its herd

[@anatineduo4289]

I've also thought that. Certainly there is the deterrence factor of a large state, but a long term occupation might be more difficult with the many small states, especially if they all are aware that they may be called upon to fight and resist to preserve their way of treasured way of life. There is the possibility of defense treaties too. As counterexamples we have Vietnam, Afghanistan, N Korea... small states that resisted empires, sometimes with the help of other empires. Another consideration is that Europe's vulnerability to the Blitzkrieg might be because it was largish states already...France for example was pretty big.

[@matthewoates4656]

@@anatineduo4289 Very interesting points

[@ruthbennett7563]

This entire lecture strikes me as an eloquent argument for a return to the medieval European system (some of which were more progressive & egalitarian… but most were tyrannical pyramid power structures). I suppose the authors envision themselves as rulers instead of serfs. I’m curious how the reality of “the power to choose” would play out in this decentralized “utopia.”

[@fusion9619]

Blitzkriegs are expensive. All war is expensive. The solution to state wars or any other tyranny is to make tyranny too expensive. There's only two ways I know of that always make attack more expensive than defense - one has already failed to solve this s problem, and the other is strong encryption. I'm not worried at all about big conquering states - they can't beat strong encryption.

[@GeorgeDonnelly]

Pitch me market anarchism without using the words market anarchism. Love it.

[@wesleyh7945]

This is not a narrator or a presenter, this is a cringy impersonator. It distracts from the excellent content. Stop distracting from the excellent content please.

[@antont229]

I really like the idea of the greek city states. But I think there still should be superior organisations which propose dialog and free trade. So that partnership, economic competition and -specialisation is encouraged. What I think would be a hindrance to overall development, is if these superior organisations impose any laws. The legislative power should lie in the local people.