Political Decentralization as a Road to Anarcho-Capitalism | Ryan McMaken

[@emZee1994]

This was honestly fantastic

[@poiluparadis]

I really enjoyed this lecture.

[@jabariulises3404]

I dont mean to be offtopic but does anyone know a tool to get back into an Instagram account?? I somehow forgot my password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me.

[@asakareem4574]

@Jabari Ulises Instablaster =)

[@jabariulises3404]

@Asa Kareem i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process now. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.

[@jabariulises3404]

@Asa Kareem It did the trick and I finally got access to my account again. Im so happy! Thanks so much you saved my ass :D

[@asakareem4574]

@Jabari Ulises happy to help =)

[@tricksyhobbitses1695]

Amazing talk!

[@linsjonas]

Anarcho Capitalism is the best method of social organization

[@Freefolkcreate]

👏👏👏👏

[@Nitrotix1]

Buying local is great in the US, but only if it is by choice, and the demand comes from knowledgeable consumers who reasonably encourage small and local producers to produce quality goods. This is especially true for small farms that produce the best rated products by large margins.

[@swedishancap3672]

It's a bit misleading IMO to call secession "creating more states", at the late stage of the process you could hardly call it a state anymore.

[@matthewrix1047]

I get your point about HOA's not being tyrannical but rather a small cultural community but that only applies if the HOA is voluntary. If all housing was required by law to implement an HOA then the whole premise falls flat

[@drhello96]

Yes, while that is not incorrect, it doesn't really speak to the issue. Because the whole idea is that if you are unhappy with in a state that forces an HOA, then you would simply move to one of the many options available with no HOA (or simply one that you agree with), or attempt to change the status quo. This can either be done by voting within the community change the rules or voting to create a smaller state with individuals who agree with you. However, if you're alluding to the idea that all sovereign states within a Anrcho-Capitalist society's land mass, such Anarcho-America, would be held under tyrannical rule should they be subject to any sort of umbrella law--then I suppose you would be right. However, once again that isn't a staple of this school of thought. I also believe that few if any would really object to some sort of looming law against the murder of innocent civilians. However, yes, typically speaking any law that rules absolutely is tyrannical. Even within our current society I believe most would agree with this. And, if we're discussing this as a concept within our current political climate I am unaware of any state laws that currently require areas within its reach to have an HOA. I personally have never lived in an area with an HOA, and do not ever plan to. This is not an idea that solves the world's issues, but rather gives individuals the option to group themselves among like minded individuals, so that this is not an issue.

[@harrymills2770]

They're not talking about government-imposed HOAs. Trouble with HOAs is the trouble with any government, though, because assholes and busybodies use it as an excuse to harass their neighbors. That's why I'd never live under an HOA. Petty tyrants.

[@LawrenceTimme]

A hoa is voluntary, you have to choose to sign the contract when you buy the house, if you didn't agree with it, you wouldn't sign it.

[@billmelater6470]

@Lawrence Timme But this ignores the question of how the HOA was started in the first place and the fact that most force you to join the HOA to buy the house in the first place which means they are setting conditions upon a set of property that they do not own. For example, if 100% of a community wanted an HOA, I see no issue. However, we have a next day problem. As soon as someone leaves or dies, then by what right can they impose their laws on the next property owner? Unless that property was turned over to them in a will, I see no legitimate reason why they could withhold what is not theirs to exclude certain would be owners. The other side of the next day issue is that what if someone has a disagreement with HOA? Are they then allowed to stop participating and do what they want with the property they're incurring all the costs for? In most cases, this "secession" is not allowed and it all becomes a mini form of Statism. This is to say that HOA's CAN be legitimate, given particular circumstances, but those circumstances do not justify other circumstances. I see HOA's like I see unions. I hate both of them, but if people wish to join, then who am I to stop them? The issue only arises when they think to exclude or coerce others based on some presupposed authority that was never theirs in the first place. In the case of an HOA, any community that "votes" to create one and impose the HOA on all those that voted no, is wholly illegitimate.

[@LawrenceTimme]

@@billmelater6470 who enforces the hoa rules if you refuse to move out? If you did something against their rules?

[@Freefolkcreate]

Ancap here, we desperately need to educate people on this.

[@harrymills2770]

The French always have the best and the worst ideas.

[@poiluparadis]

Harry Mills I don’t take credit for the french but I sure do love my bad decisions that reflect poorly on my race.

[@Spillers72]

I'm between anarcho capitalism and mutualism. I've been arguing for decentralization for awhile now. Try to take as much power to the municipal level as possible.

[@summerflashsale8125]

Anarcho capitalism ftw!

[@swedishancap3672]

heck yeah brother!

[@cosmiccomrade3108]

This guy is so amusing!

[@timsteinkamp2245]

Have you seen him walking around naked with his cat?

[@Maniac3020]

Well, we do see lots of people leaving California. We also see high taxes in California... Hmmm.

[@wetdroidedition2549]

Good content! Greetings from Mexico! Also chart cities I think is still a good idea.

[@maciej.ratajczak]

What's that?

[@maciej.ratajczak]

@@ericrodwell8706 Mexico is a social democracy like the US. It has a government (and a president), so it cannot have a free market.

[@noonegivesafork6320]

What if the smaller state rulers do not allow people to move out?

[@alemonatigaming2799]

2nd amendment

[@davidjthunder]

You mention in your lecture the importance of attending to the history of political decentralisation, and name Ralph Raico. I did a quick search on Amazon for Raico's works, but did not find anything that jumped out at me on that topic. Do you think you could point me in the right direction? I am especially interested in historical sources you have found useful on this subject, that might supplement the philosophical case for decentralization.

[@coonhound_pharoah]

Paradoxically, I view anarcho-capitalism as a means of achieving the end of minimal government.

[@Pdrum2]

If we can even achieve minimal government

[@coonhound_pharoah]

@Jeannie Seibert The country with the smallest government still has one which is too big.

[@seenivasan4699]

India should be split in to different countries. It had a population of 1.3 billion people with different cultures,languages and ethnic groups.the current government is centralized all the power and rights.it is too dangerous.

[@Luciferofom]

What is the anarcho capitalist solution for mass outbreak of disease like ebola? Could quarantines be implemented without violation of the natural rights?

[@judithsmith8014]

To wish to do as one pleases and therefore set up a series of mini-states to carry out these whims and impulses has been tried in many Communes around the country and most close down because they don't work. What works morally as well as financially is important to human well-being. Having the smallest possible Government is a good thing to aim for. To fly the flag or not respect the flag - to whom are you responsible to then? Where would your loyalties lie if you are not unified when outside trouble comes from other Countries who want to take what you have? Those countries have always existed, and they believe in divide and conquer, so by becoming ever more divided and weaker are you not doing that to yourself. Does that mean separate laws for everything, like the laws the Democrat politicians decided to make to force all people to drink from SEPARATE drinking fountains whereas before everyone was ok drinking from the same fountain? Does that mean that you believe Female Genital Mutilation is ok, or not ok, depending which State you choose to go? I would say, in this particular example, go back to Islamic COUNTRIES where it's the law or Africa where it is practiced by the majority, but such barbarity cannot be practiced in the USA. Horrifying to a woman but not so much to a man perhaps? By splintering and breaking down everything to cater to the whims and impulses makes each human the law maker, this leaves you vulnerable to falling into the hand of the most brutal human leader. This is not common sense, and it does not recognize centuries old common law encompassing what works. Tribalism can be very ugly. So is your general idea everything and anything goes depending on where you live in the USA? This seems to me to be the shallowest way to think about what works and makes a cohesive and decent society. Tribalism is what you are flirting with and we have the means now to record what happens and also, historically, to look back and see what has worked. Would it not seem that you have crossed over from decency to indecency in many of your ideas? It will not matter how many times you shift or wish for relief you will always be confronted by people who have different ideas from yours. That is what makes life interesting, maybe not so comfortable but thought provoking. Interesting as thought experiments to mull over. Regards.

[@verntoews6937]

The bible actually says these smaller groups are more effective for their own benefit. One rule in one area just not practical in another. Regarding.globalization. This is not a one size fits all world

[@Inivican]

The biggest, most frequently unaddressed problem of anti-statism that pro-capitalist ideologues should reconcile is the issue that all that the central component of the state is a monopoly of violence. However, if you wish to disestablish the state and preserve Capitalism, you end up in a position where the state is almost certain to be re-established. The upper class, whether you call it the elite, bourgeoisie, whatever; requires the existence of a state in order to secure their own safety. And even if Capitalists don't re-establish the state among themselves de-jure, they will have done it de-facto with their private armies maintaining their territory in a manner very similar to that of medieval feudalism. The only real difference to a "Anarcho-Capitalist" vision of the world and feudalism is that under feudalism there was limited centralization of power in religious institution. To all of you self-described Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists, I challenge you to prove that a landed gentry don't have an incredible incentive to establish a state in order to protect their assets. The fundamental problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is that it does not recognize class, and because of that it just assumes that the state won't come back in order to serve the interests of the ruling class.

[@Caleb983]

Will the new states originate from actual contracts with their "ruling class" clients? Compared to the "social contract" we have today? Perhaps state and market is like the yin-yang, can't have one without the other. But surely, your conception of medieval feudalism isn't the cartoon version spoon fed to us in the public schools, I hope.

[@timsteinkamp2245]

The Bible says we will end up with a King and I'm afraid that is the only way for this version of humans.

[@emZee1994]

Read Rothbards books for a in depth answer to this question, particularly the last few chapters of his book For a New Liberty. A summary won't do it justice Lastly what you're saying is basically "there is no use to abolishing the state because it's only a matter of time before it remerges and so let's just keep the state". Well if that was to happen then at least you had say 50 years without a state living in relative freedom as opposed to always being under a state

[@maciej.ratajczak]

42:47 - How do you achieve this perfect anarcho-capitalist society? Well, I'll just convince everyone that anarcho-capitalism is the way to go. Well, you're gonna probably have a much easier time convincing people that maybe they would benefit from self-determination at the local level and simply be able to form a society that they find more suitable to them, that reflects their values and so on.

[@palmettocynic8482]

You completely missed the point of the lecture.

[@maciej.ratajczak]

@@palmettocynic8482 Thanks, Palmetto. Could you explain it to me?

[@comesahorseman]

👍👍

[@razerfish]

People would group by race, socio economic status, and culture. It would funny to see liberals scream about white supremacy and not enough diversity!

[@fjkzdj.8561]

Anarcho-capitalism as described here sounds like a combination of nationalism and globalism, with some of the worst and best traits of each.

[@Kanfachan]

The United States tried secession and breaking itself up back in the 1860's. How did that turn out??

[@harrymills2770]

That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the individual parts being more self-sufficient and self-governing. We don't want a revolution. We just want the centralized controls to atrophy over time. If all countries had mostly autonomous communities, and high levels of individual sovereignty, then national borders would become less and less relevant. Globalists want to control everything from the top down. But if we governed from the ground UP, we'd approach one global community, NATURALLY. Leftists want to FORCE the homogenization of one-world culture. Libertarians want to LET it happen (except for the libertarians who want to abolish national borders before the people on both sides of borders have freedom and prosperity).

[@Kanfachan]

Jeannie Seibert Thanks for pointing out the error. Just made the correction.

[@bobleglob162]

It was put down by the murderer/tyrant Lincoln. Doesn't mean it was a bad idea does it?

[@flowerpt]

Do you really think a "50 States" USA will exist in a thousand years? If so, that would go against everything we've learned from history. If not, the only question is "when".

[@hamnchee]

It may have worked out much better if the North had just let the South secede, as theorized in the lecture.

[@aquavitae3824]

Christian values are critical!

[@Paul-A01]

Critical of what?

[@eh3253]

TGGeko critical of anything not represented in their dogma.

[@aquavitae3824]

@@Paul-A01 critical *for* a just, human-rights loving #decentralized future. I challenge anyone to derive human-dignity without the Christ's teaching. A civilization cannot subsist off of subjective values; moral relativism is socially degenerative to the point of infinite federation. As, let us say a nation for instance, federates infinitely; its members become more vulnerable to conquest. A divided house is most vulnerable; thus a re-ligare "to bind fast" fastens decentralized peoples. Think about the use of militias in the early states in their fight for #autonomy.

[@poiluparadis]

Aqua Vitae no they aren’t. But you are free to have those beliefs.

[@aquavitae3824]

@@poiluparadis then prove me wrong; I challenge you to derive human-dignity without Christian teachings. Please put your money where you mouth is, or retract your rebuff.

[@adityasawdekar8147]

Isn't stateless society a fantasy? People naturally move towards family ~ tribe ~ nation ~ state. Even the current nation-states is a natural consequence of human nature. How would a stateless society emerge? Difficult to imagine one.

[@Freefolkcreate]

Not exactly. It's not against association in any healthy way. But many groups throughout history have organized themselves as their own representatives. Heads of households would council with others and negotiate solutions like mutual aid, and private law societies. It's actually a very normal, natural system. The reason it seems unfathomable is two fold our education system has given us no room to question the status quo. And secondly, there are extremely powerful people who have a vested interest in said status quo remaining intact. That doesn't mean it's impossible, it may be that people need to do more toward actualizing free societies. Such as buy an island. I'd call it Sanity Island 😂

[@mchiral]

Hey MR perfect pronunciation, you are arguing for Balkinization: to divide (a country, territory, etc.) into small, quarrelsome, ineffectual states.

[@billmelater6470]

That is indeed possible, but Balkanization does not guarantee quarrel anymore than centralization guarantees unity. Conflict across borders is called "War". Conflict within borders is called "Civil War". We cannot say for certain what might happen, but I think it safe to say that conflict can arise regardless of the circumstance.

[@mchiral]

@@billmelater6470 Describe your successful Balkinization and give 2 examples.

[@billmelater6470]

@@mchiral I never said that success would be guaranteed, nor is that my point. My point is only that break-up is not only natural, but in many cases inevitable and as we see in history, is a constant. However they are typically violent becasue most efforts for secession are never allowed to be peaceful in the first place. The dynamic behind most Balkanization has been because of internal conflict and so a power struggle for supremacy typically ensues as a break-up usually carries with it a struggle over establishing new borders. Thus, Balkanization does not necessarily HAVE to be violent, but typically does. I never said it didn't, only that violence is not a requirement. And to this point, unification does not inherently mean that there is no strife or struggle and is often times they very root cause of the strife, otherwise Civil War would never have existed. In fact, most break-ups are violent because the old order usually just wants to retain control whereas the new wishes to break away. This is clear in the split of Pakistan from India, the break-up of the Yugoslavia, the deterioration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and even the Colonies from Britain. As for as you might be concerned, the US should have never been allowed to rebel and breakaway from Britain anymore than Taiwan should have been allowed to remain separate from Mainland China.

[@mchiral]

@@billmelater6470 A simple split is not Balkinization.

[@billmelater6470]

@@mchiral The same argumentation applies. You'll note that I have examples of both.

[@Costgobbo]

Without a state with the monopoly of violence, how are people supposed to enforce private property?

[@nicholastidemann9384]

Everyone has a duty and responsibility to enforce natural rights.

[@ihateyankees3655]

The state does far more to interfere with property rights.

[@Costgobbo]

@@nicholastidemann9384 Why is it an natural right to have private property? It's just a construct under capitalism and if the state one day decides that this construct is harmful then all protections of private property would disappear.

[@Costgobbo]

@@ihateyankees3655 What do you mean? The only reason why a guy can own a factory and not have it seized by the workers is that the owner got the state on his side which will send police on the workers if they do such a thing.

[@ihateyankees3655]

@@Costgobbo The state tells him what he can make, where he can sell it, how he advertises it, how much the workers are paid, what the price is, what sort of licensing he needs, and if they want they can sieze it outright.

[@gareginasatryan6761]

Im sorry but this is crap. People move back and forth to Canada all the time. Not to mention there are dozens of English speaking countries. The reason most people don’t is because they like their life.

[@johanhartman6368]

I think you missed his point. 1) There are only 3 countries in all of North America, and only 2 speak English. Put it in economic terms. If there's only 2 companies in a given market, there's very little competition, meaning the product is going to be shit, and likely quite similar. 2) Because of the fact there's so much land in North America, you'd likely have to move hundreds if not thousands of miles to go between countries. This would cause one to uproot their life in order to move. However, if we had hundreds or thousands of micro-states in the same area, you'd only have to move 20 or 30 miles (depending on size of states). You could still be close to family and friends, but have an entirely different government, one that lines up with your particular values. As he said, there's no current real-world example of this, however Europe in the medieval ages is an excellent one. 3) I work in Boston, but after a few years I decided to stop living in MA and move to NH. Even though the commute is a bit rougher, NH's values are quite a bit closer to my own than MA. I am living proof of his theory

[@poiluparadis]

Garegin Asatryan how what why? Did he argue that people don’t move to Canada?

[@AlexeySherstnev]

Nope

[@aquavitae3824]

"Nope" why? Please articulate your reasoning.

[@AlexeySherstnev]

@@aquavitae3824 because politic. Politic is health of government

[@aquavitae3824]

@@AlexeySherstnev I think I follow your meaning, but your statements weren't very clear. That said, I agree that infinite decentralization isn't the whole solution.

[@aquavitae3824]

@@xzzxxxxzzx I thought he lived in a direct democracy.

[@Eirenarch]

What a waste of time this lecture was. I didn't hear anything I didn't already strongly believe.

[@pooplord6688]

I consider myself to be a left anarchist, not an AnCap at all, but I appreciate and approve of this talk.

[@ludwigtalbott401]

"I consider myself to be a left anarchist" What is a left-anarchist? What's left about anarchism except that it carries the name "anarchist" and potentially votes for a Yang and Gabbard socialist?

[@pooplord6688]

@@ludwigtalbott401 Historically speaking, most people who have used the term anarchist have been socialists who were also anti-state. And probably most people today who call themselves anarchists are also socialists.