Episode

Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Social:
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
X: / iamstephenwest
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow

[@malapuzta6296]

The interview with slavoj zizek needs to happen, please!

[@Amazology]

Yes ! Did you see that recent one ?...Zizek just cancelled the future. Man has Ideas. I like his angles, lenses , perspectives etc.

[@penn1289]

Yes, one hundred percent please

[@Herr_Vorragender]

Are there not already a bazillion interviews to be found on KZbin with him? 🙈🙉🙊

[@Amazology]

@@Herr_Vorragender but not on this channel. Also Z is a prolific SoB. Comes up with new stuff all the time and modifies his view as events occur. Admirable if obsessive qualities which are in short supply given the amount of copy paste content with which the internet bulges at the seems

[@beastmry]

I still can't believe how one man talking of philosophical ideas starting from ancient Greece has grown into such a popular podcast that people including myself listen to at least once a week, thanks to the backlog and how relistenable it is. It's an actual miracle and credit to Stephen West for being able to do so. I remember the earlier episodes when he used to mention being ad free always, but I knew it was a matter of time before sponsors picked up on just how big this podcast had grown, probably particularly during the pandemic.

[@devilishegg]

I would love zizek but given his track record of going off on so many tangents, we still need you to deliver a standalone episode that dives into it. Given the references to the Other and the way anarchy is still an ideology, this makes perfect sense to continue!

[@perion1]

Hello Stephen West. You are an absolute delight to listen to. I find your podcasts extremely helpful in understanding key concepts of philosophy. I have a REQUEST. Though I understand your podcast to a great degree, I am at times unable to grasp the scope and magnitude of these heavy words you use like epistemology, ontology,realism, metaphysics etc. I do understand the basic meaning of these terms but find myself failing miserably when I try to think deep and long on these subjects. Online resources are much scattered to form a solid understanding of these concepts. Do you think it is worthwhile making standalone episodes on these philosophical disciplines explaining chronologically the evolution of thought, its thinkers and the current frontiers of these topics? I would really enjoy such episodes as much as I do others. Thank you.

[@Herr_Vorragender]

Yes true. And what a wonderful time to be alive where we an throw the question towards GPT 4. And so I asked it : Explain the term "epistemology" to someone who is not a philosopher. And I received the answer : Epistemology is a big word that comes from the Greek language, but it's not as intimidating as it sounds. It's a field of philosophy that explores questions about knowledge, such as: 1. What is knowledge? 2. How is knowledge acquired? 3. What do people know? 4. How do we know what we know? Let's break it down a bit further: Imagine you have a box, and inside the box is something you can't see. You shake the box, you hear a rattling sound, and you guess there's a set of keys inside. If you open the box and see that you're right, you now know there are keys inside the box. But how did you acquire that knowledge? First, you made an educated guess based on the sound. Then, you confirmed it by looking inside the box. This process of gathering knowledge, making a hypothesis, and confirming it is part of what epistemology studies. Epistemology also looks at the limitations of our knowledge. For example, if you didn't open the box, can you really know that there are keys inside? Or is it just a well-educated guess? So, in simple terms, epistemology is the study of knowledge: how we acquire it, how we confirm it, and how sure we can be about it.

[@chopperhauler5874]

Maybe a secondary channel where you can interview philosophers would be a good idea.

[@ozsoyluceyhun]

Yea, nice idea, would be nice to have this channel solely be on Stephen talking on subjects..

[@Anarcath]

Best philosophy channel on KZbin. I wish I had money to support you.

[@abbasishehryar8297]

same 😥

[@Circ0_0]

Okay, 4 issues. 1. Anarchism is not when there are no laws. I don't know why that is the common assumption, but in an anarchist society, there are laws. However, unlike state systems, they are instituted by the people directly affected by them the most(Direct Democracy, Consensus Democracy, etc.). In a state system, major decisions that affect the lives of countless people are decided by a small minority, based on their own goals, and enforced top-down. So they have governance, but they don’t have a state. 2. Capitalism is a hierarchical system. Simple as. It is a system where the few extract excess labor value from the masses as profit and monopolize the means of production via private ownership. It is a system that cares less about stability and sustainability and more about the profit incentive and infinite growth. It creates a diametrically opposed relationship between the business owner and the worker. The owner wants to have the fewest workers possible, pay them as little as possible, and work them for as long as possible, as hard as possible, to extract as much profit as possible. While the worker wants to be employed, work as little as possible, as calmly as possible, and earn as much as possible, in the best conditions possible. At the end of the day, value comes from labor. If there were no workers then no products would get made. Even if a machine made the product, someone built said machine. Even if another machine built that machine, look back far enough, and you’ll find someone who made the first machine. In this way, all value comes from and eventually traces back to labor. A company doesn't need a CEO to dominate and subject the workers to the decisions they make at the behest of their capital. On the other hand, a company without any workers would inevitably fail, which makes it, without a doubt, an unjustifiable hierarchy if you are an anarchist. 3. The anarchism always fails argument is wrong and a logical fallacy. First, there are examples of functioning societies that follow anarchist principles, with hundreds of thousands and even millions of people right now, like the Zapatistas and Rojava. Not to mention the countless ancient anarchist societies which include many indigenous groups in North America(Ex. Muscogee Creek Nation). Sure, they eventually fell, but they fell in the same way that all other civilizations fell. To say that they failed is to imply a metric of success that is very narrow and erases all other metrics of success that don't fit that conception. For many anarchists, these projects would be successful in that their failures and successes furthered progress toward anarchism, which is the primary goal for anarchists. This leads me to the next point: saying that anarchism always fails because of something inherent is a false analogy. It is very similar to assuming that global warming isn't caused by humans because there have been other periods of warming in the history of the earth. In this example, you assume that because multiple events share a characteristic, they are analogous in other ways. The characteristic they share is warming, and the assumed analogy is the cause of the warming. But this excludes the fact that the other warmings had different causes, intensities, durations, and effects. In the same way, people assume that whenever anarchism collapses, it is because of something intrinsic to anarchism. Again, this excludes the fact that these societies went about anarchism differently. That different collapses happened at different times, for differing reasons, in different ways, in different circumstances, and for the most part, have little to do with each other. Thus, assuming something is fundamentally wrong with anarchism, *specifically* because of a false analogy, is misguided. Whenever someone makes an assumption, they are always subject to the burden of proof. 4. Anarchism means no military or police force is wrong. Alright, this one sounds kind of misleading because anarchists DO NOT support a state-run military, prisons, or police(Especially police), but the idea the anarchists have no defense force and are opposed to violence is very very wrong. The reason anarchist don't support the military or the police is because their purpose is violently enforcing the rule of the state. If you are an anarchist, you think the state has some serious issues, so of course, you wouldn't support the groups that enforce their rule among the rest of the world and the national population respectively. But in an anarchist society, you would have a militia run by the community to combat domination using the force of mutuality. Domination being the degree to which a power structure uses coercion, violence, and/or deception to achieve its ends and maintain itself. Mutuality being the degree to which a power structure uses cooperation, self-defense, and free thought to achieve its ends. When it comes to crime, the solution is simple. The large majority of crime is caused by poverty; nobody steals something they already have in abundance. So, the solution to poverty is found through social amenities, mutual aid, and labor incentives, not by sending people to inhumane labor camps where they work for no pay and receive close to no rehabilitation or aid to better assimilate with the outside world. As for the police, no/low poverty means no/low crime, so justification for their existence ceases. Any crime that remains can be handled by the community fairly quickly, by action through the militia and public consensus on how to help/rehabilitate the perpetrator. On the other hand, serious crimes committed by genuine sadists who enjoy human suffering would be dealt with through permanent residence at a rehabilitation center, exile, etc... Anarchism isn't only about having no hierarchies. It is also about instituting viable, flexible, and horizontal alternatives to these systems that achieve similar results as best as possible. Power can be delegated, but it is temporary and has to be able to be recalled/dissolved at the drop of a hat. In other words, you start with the bottommost unit(Community Counsel for governance, Militia for the army, and Pods for intelligence agencies) and have them make decisions about structures from the bottom up and then delegate. If someone above them in a delegated structure isn't doing what they’re meant to, they can just dissolve the entire structure. Super cool that you're discussing this topic tho For anyone wanting to learn more, I recommend starting with the KZbin channel Andrewism super-fun channel; once you get a good grasp of that, move on to the KZbin channel Anark (for intermediate/advanced), and when you understand those topics, start reading anarchist theory ( ** theanarchistlibrary. org** is the goat, trust. It has every piece of theory you could ever want). TLDR: I am a nerd. pls, read if you want to learn because I physically cannot oversimplify any more than I already have. also read the paragraph right above this useless tldr if you are interested.

[@bomination.]

how do you deal with the criminal domineering types ?

[@michaelchildish]

Holy Wall of Text Batman!

[@anonymoose478]

seems like it would be rampant with corruption and factions

[@ffffffffffffffff5840]

​@@bomination.outnumber them with horizontal solidarity

[@ArgaJacint]

Regarding the first point, i guess the difference is also somewhat semantical. Many anarchists do say that under anarchism there wouldn't be law, but it's because they use law in the sense of rules created and enforced by the state from the top-down, while for rules created and enforced by community or community delegated organisations are just simply called rules.

[@bar_and_grill6125]

Thank you Mr West, you are a treasure to listen to❤

[@jasonbye2541]

Yes to Zizek interview. I saw him in Portland, Oregon and love listening to and reading his stuff.

[@ChrisSaysThis]

Yes please, I would love to listen to your interview of him.

[@filipesimoesdasilva8190]

I've been studying AnCap for a while, and I would love to listen to your take on Hoppe (a paleolibertarian/anarcho-monarchist). Also, an episode on Agorism would be a nice complement to the topic.

[@arthurrotari8702]

An interview with Zizek on philosophize this, sounds like a dream come true.

[@LikeRYTP]

Would absolutely love to hear you interviewing Slavoj Zizek! Thank you so much for all what you are doing ❤❤❤

[@alanryan7605]

Terrific education. Thank you. Loved the name call at the end and yes please for that potential interview. Thank you for all you do.

[@gbones99]

Glad you got around to this material the last few episodes, its important to talk about go through. My own personal philosophy is a mix of Anarchist thought, some Peter Singer, a dash of Nozick and a liberal peppering of Rawls.....love your channel.

[@maticdrempe1862]

As a Slovenian learning through philosophise this, I am beyond excited for the crossover. Also you are really good at advocating for the devil. I mean devils advocate. Thats what I mean

[@sonicjihad7]

Fantastic series man.

[@lancequin5209]

This podcast is the definition of 'steelmanning' - he really makes the best arguments for all philosophies

[@sheepwshotguns42]

really have to work like hell to steelman something as pretzel brained as anarcho-capitalism :P

[@gitarrojoe]

i think the interview is great idea, its additional content. if you contextualize the input then i trust it will be another great episode! thanks

[@markoslavicek]

Oh man I cannot wait for the following episodes and interviews, really.

[@host228]

I woukd listen to an interview with Slavoj Zizek

[@MarxismIsACancerousReligion]

He is a Hegelian. Nothing changes with him. Power will still look to find its god like perfection when following Hegelian idealism.

[@misery_of_mika]

This anarchism series is frickin awesome… and having Zizek on the podcast would be a dream come true! I love the guy even though most of what he says does go over my head and what I do understand I don’t necessarily agree with ;) I do also agree with an other commenter on the fact that you’d need a more organized episode to unpack everything he talks about in the case of an interview. Thanks for making these as always ! You’re definitely doing your bit to contribute to building a society of empathetic critical thinkers

[@matrolen]

Would love to hear you and Zizek in a conversation/monologue 😂 and an episode on Zizek.

[@3ikhu]

I would love to hear you interviewing Slavoj Zizek, Please make it real! And do more interviews in general, I miss those!

[@farahali6749]

It would be really wonderful if you bring up Cornel West, Judith Butler and Naomi Klein next month. And definitely yes for Zizek interview. Looking forward. Wonderful talk as usual. Thank you Steven.

[@DethChikken]

Yay! Zizek! This is exciting!

[@wallbangerreactions]

An interview would be great. I'm on board.

[@darkness1293]

Yes to any interview but have them be a standalone thing

[@rakeshsata6478]

Awaiting for zizek🎉

[@abbasishehryar8297]

Next podcast [zizek interview} is gonna be most awaited podcast. Hope Stephen you can do something about Zizek complex accent. looking forward to Zizek dirty jokes.

[@yveskagame4296]

Hello Stephen! The download and listening of Apple Podcasts is not well. Maybe something happened. It says that the show is temporary unavailable. Please help me to figure out how I will be able to listen to the show again

[@codyc7036]

Im an ancap. The city i live in has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to put some rocks in a bay.

[@lbjvg]

Technofeudalism, a concept promoted by Yanis Varoufakis, seems to be an apt description of current trends.

[@SubaCenter]

Through out the episode I couldn’t help but keep thinking, what about anarcho socialism? Not a free market and a decentralization but instead a robust centralization by means of labor unions. I guess perhaps that’d no longer be anarchy but it would be a means of self regulation with an integrated meritocracy and accessible form of localized and nationalized democracy. A government could exist out of a democratic association by the labor unions most prescient to the issues of the time and that government could exist solely as a means of regulating and communicating by essentially the industries that we need/create themselves. Just my thoughts tho

[@quasar5163]

I've never heard someone say decentralization so much and not say Blockchain or wait, nevermind, 3 mins in

[@thisisnootnoots]

Zizek interview!

[@heerakathakor6016]

This might seem a little weird, but I dont think I'd want an interview with Slavoj Zizek on this channel. I think on a different channel it'd make sense, since this channel of yours really is a place where people come to deliberately learn about philosophy. An interview would deviate from that. The interview is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of diluting your core viewers, since most of them dont even know what a Slavoj Zizek is. That said, if you're bored and wanna try your hand at something new, by all means, give it a go!

[@Herr_Vorragender]

There are tons and tons of interviews with Slavoj Žižek on all platforms and especially on KZbin. It is really hard to follow his slightly chaotic way of talking. This podcast on the other hand is rare and super well structured. I would therefore suggest to condense the core of Žižek and make an episode of it instead of making yet another hard to follow interview with him.

[@steven2183]

“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!" - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

[@kasimirfreeman]

His statement is self contradictory: his own standing room disproves his assertion. If he deserves the standing room to speak and make assertions, he recognizes the fundamental of property as distinct from possession, and must preference the firstcomer to the latecomer. If he rejects property, he must be consistent and depart this earth to open up his occupied space to others.

[@AwkwardSegway95]

Yes

[@drrains]

Zizek please and thank you!

[@alwayslfg791]

Are the Amish considered to be an anarchist society?

[@elinope4745]

I align with both anarchocapitalists and anarchosyndicalists. Both are correct about property and where it comes from. The idea that these ideas clash is the real illusion. Both oppose bad actors in control of resources but offer different solutions and ideals. Life is complex, vocabulary is simple.

[@adamlagerqvist8111]

As someone who would not describe myself as an anarchist per se, this relationship seems very one-sided. The syndicalists will see you as on the side of hierarchy (the thing they oppose.) To me the thing you called an illusion seems to be integral to their entire ideology. You are right that both ideologies confront what they see as inherent corruption build in to our current relationship to property and the state but syndicalists are way more radical in their critique of property/capital than the ancaps. This leaves you with a big problem when trging to coalition build since the syndicalists veiw almost every ancap policy as moving further away from the goal of a world free from hierarchy and thus capital. TLDR I don't think you are as ideologically aligned with them as you think you are.

[@michaelchildish]

How about doing a video on Liberal Socialism / Social Democracy / Social Market Economies? I live in it and it's nicer than cannibalism Stalin and $500 saline drips USA. Moderation is good when it's not the argument to moderation fallacy.

[@adamlagerqvist8111]

What exactly is good in moderation? Both left-wing and right-wing policies? Sure social democracy is better than both unchanged capitalism and stalinsim, but is social democracy just a moderate amount of stalinism? I think there are better ways of understanding the intricate differences between these systems. Personaly I hate how the political compass or other equally reductive frameworks flatten our current political climate and encourages campism over progress.

[@standowner6979]

6:24 What?!! Kevin Carson's work is non-existent then. Good to know

[@FelipeSantos-uk8ub]

Yeees we want

[@Anti_Capitalisms]

Zizek interview? As Plato so famously put it in the Timaeus, [or was it the Dialogues?] , "FUCK, YEAH!!!!!" And so on and so forth .....

[@acardinalconsideration824]

“Beware of people preaching simple solutions to complex problems” -Batman

[@lymphy12]

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler” -Albert Einstein

[@bomination.]

actually problems have simple origins, so simple solutions are fitting.

[@michaelchildish]

@@bomination.I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is but it's indeed logically fallacious. Simple origins can spawn complex webs of interconnected problems. Complicated problems can have simple solutions.

[@bomination.]

@@michaelchildish name one relevant complex problem regarding human economics ?

[@michaelchildish]

@@bomination.The stagflation of China is a very complex politico-economic-social issue and is rippling worldwide. You could oversimplify and say CCP mistakes and incompetence. You could also get more in depth and it arrives at geopolitics with China pinned between global markets and BRICS and many more factors relating to history and human nature. Anyway, they chose global markets. They will not forget that in a hurry that the USA forced them to be part of sanctions against Russia.

[@mlw.high.]

Yesss zizek!

[@addammadd]

A wonder is whether we don’t already live under hegemonic corporate rule and if, given that corporations act as essentially sovereign agents when they’re large enough, we don’t already live under anarcho-capitalism sans lettre. 15:35 show me this principle without a leviathan.

[@michaelchildish]

Anarcho-Capitalism is the ideology of pure, unadulterated, malignant selfishness. We currently have them in office in UK right now. They damaged our country for their own personal gain by legalising embezzlement and having hedgefund chums short sell against our economy

[@arnellscott6623]

Blockchain technology and bitcoin currently provides the platform for large scale self governance

[@seanpatrickrichards5593]

Koala Sanctuary :D

[@christinemartin63]

Big, abstract utopian ideas sound like pie in the sky, by and by. Better to work to improve your lot and that of your family and your friends. If you still have time (and an inclination), then your local community can be another project. (What a lot of fuss we make over "changing the world" 🙄.)

[@taodude]

"Why do they see anarcho-capitalists as fake anarchists?" Because libertarian socialist had meant anarchist, in the anti-capitalist sense, since the words had first been smushed together. Rothbard himself was integral in co-opting "libertarian" to mean an-cap, as he is famously quoted bragging about in "Betrayal of the American Right": "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..."

[@m_idd]

No.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

Coming in strong with the hottest take of 2009!

[@rayleverkunst]

I can't take anyone seriously if they see themselves as anarcho-capitalists.

[@TennesseeJed]

I am willing to try something.

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

I think that as soon as we put a name on something (even as far as saying that making something an specific thing by naming it), or making it private property we instantly limit other people's freedom. There is no such thing as freedom to participate in anything, we are already inside a shared community-created language, and even if we make use of it, for what we perceive as a benefit, the true is that it already limits our freedom to decide how to name a certain thing, to give it a different name or connect reality in some other way that could maybe be even more beneficial. There is no objective fairness nor freedom, as we kidnap concepts, ideas, ideologies by talking, by intentionally expressing ourselves, and sometimes even by just being. Any system that creates also destroys what it isnt, and what it isnt is exactly the place were our minds live within, in our future, in what we could create to satisfy our impulse of doing. Anarcho-capitalism would limit our freedom, as any other system, by creating the concept of private property, and it will systematically neglect the needs of those who dont own the property themselves (and i said earlier, any system would do this, i dont mean to complain about everything, just to elucidate possible shortcomings). What i mean is that capital (not just money or interchanging products) acts as perceivable future, as what it isnt, where we build our own desire of creating and doing, it is our new god, where we project all our capacities and pray for our god to give us something back. With money being our god, all of our manpower will tend towards it, and the more we justify doing that, the more we will neglect all other facets of human life. I dont mean to just destroy all money and let people live, like suddenly destroying their imaginary chains that held them down, that wouldnt work, since youll be destroying their built subjectivity alongside money. But youll need to create, basically, a new god, something they can shoot for that they strongly believe would satisfy their desires, and the construction of any god happens from the bottom up (as each added hope or believing in it, justifies it, and makes it stronger). This could (even maybe inevitably) lead to the tyranny of such god over mankind, but limiting the exponential growth of a new god would only happen if we dont tend to pretend it can solve absolutely all of our problems.

[@eliasE989]

Nope. It leads to monopolies and massive downgrades to workers rights and environmental destruction. Everything gets monetized and most people will be slaves under megacorporations.

[@Localfriendlyanarchist]

Why do philosophy youtubers think they understand anarchism then make videos explaining how they don't understand anarchism?

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

Well, i dont mean to be too antagonistic but, what is anarchism then?, i mean, many self-proclaimed anarchist use really authoritarian manners of speaking to impose their view and definition of anarchism, be it, anarcho-comunism, anarcho syndicalism, even anarcho-individualism, ( there are horizontal and anarchist organizations im sure) but usually end up creating useless controversy and get nowhere in the big scheme of things, as they fail to invite non-supporters to their cause. There are horizontal ways of organizing people, but are they created by relentlessly regurgitating 100 years old books on anarchism, or by giving the people the ideas that help them envision a future inside those organizations? You can always try to forcefully indoctrinare people to change their ideological lens, but isnt dialectically advancing the conflicting ideas about a subject, in form of a video (as Steven does), a way more respectful and less authoritarian way, of explaining the limitations of different people's thinking and help them develop less authoritarian ways of organization?

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

Firefighting was completely private. And those who didn't pay would be ignored when fire happened. So if my house goes up in flames, it could take out other homes in the neighborhood because no one will extinguish the flames before it becomes a threat to others.

[@pmark417]

How to you remove all protectionism and crony capitalism without completely flipping the tables of the money changers? It seems to me the collateral damage would be substantial.

[@ElisasThoughts]

Could Anarcho-Capitalism be the solution to our problems? No. Next question.

[@jonas6120]

Thanks for such an elaborate and well reasoned answer! With that being said, I agree.

[@benjamindover4337]

Dad? Will there still be butt-implants after the revolution?

[@SlickSimulacrum]

Yes, but they will charge you rent for them. And if you dare to take out such measures to protect the rest of society from your smelly end, they will imprison you and charge you a reinsertion fee when you are released. Flatulence prisons become both a place of punishment and a place of relief. And naturally the maker of the only valid implants also owns the prison, and the security who will put you there.

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

The difference between government run and private run is merely who owns the system. The private sector is unaccountable unless government keeps them in check. The government is we, the people.

[@ep1c_p3rson50]

Ah yes anarcho-capitalism. Let’s get rid of all hierarchical systems of power but keep class divides…..

[@quintessenceSL]

More- let's build stawmen of the worst of government while claiming business are free of such malfeasance, as they collude with the government. You can't make this stuff up.

[@host228]

I like the idea 10k years from now everyone will be smart, systems will be efficient , earth will be clean. Smart people value health of planet

[@addammadd]

@@host228and “everyone” will be three oligarchs living in vats in perpetuity warming themselves on the afterglow of what was once a society.

[@Theospraxis]

No

[@dbarker7794]

You want "a free market with no government"? 😂 Good luck, brother.

[@kasimirfreeman]

Anarcho-Capitalism is not lawlessness: it is Universal property law which enables Local morality rules. The property owner determines which moral laws are enforced, via eviction, on his property. A group of such owners can contract to establish the same rules on a territory - but neither the individual, nor this group, can ever violate property rights while maintaining their claim of being lawful. This is called a covenant community - and it is fully capable of simulating many legal systems, except in the extent of punishments for non-aggressive actions (eviction as maximum).

[@jusuzippol]

I can't even believe you put anarcho-capitalism in the same basket as anarchism...

[@ericjackson-nq4hp]

West is one of the strongest readers anywhere online and in rarified air everywhere around the world. This channel is a public service. Like the agora of ancient times. Factions didn't fare well in 14th century Verona either, 'civil hands made unclean.' Dante wound up in exile because the Pope sought to align and bolster the 'Blacks,' whereas we got _The Divine Comedy_ as a direct response to Dante's own exile and his entrenchment with the 'Whites.' My PoliSci professor also spent some time mining Anarcho-Capitalism... and at it's logical ends, it gets wicked, quick. Think like; Ancient Greek hoplites and the First Sacred War wicked. Although, the Hippocratic oath is founded in that particular war--Hippocrates felt terrible over his uncle poisoning the water of the residents immediate to that war. To the greatest wealth goes an endless array of surplus. And surplus has its root in one of the oldest words known to man, 'bread,' which in the ancient word also means War. Surplus is the root of war and it was planted once man decided to stop wandering the earth and hang-out in one spot and tend to the fields. One can buy the Anarcho-Capitalist flag on Amazon these days, it's there. Factions. I ain't buying no flag and Dante's tomb is still empty in Florence. My runt cat is named after Ms Judith Butler, PhD. That mind is sexy AF.

[@standowner6979]

13:37 it's not correct. The videogame industry is a perfect counterexample. EA, Ubisoft, Acti - we hate our women - vision, etc. How do Ancaps explain that?

[@SlickSimulacrum]

Coverage of the ignorant neo-feudalists. You sir, are a completionist.

[@Edmonddantes123]

No