วีดีโอ

Karl.

I don't understand what you mean.

I was wondering how an ancap society would stop centralization and eventually create the state again Take all USA counties and turn them into private cities, take one midwest county. Due to the region's cultural and ethnic homogenity, you can easily convince a county to fuse with yours (or form an aliance with them), then you go fusing counties and suddenly your county (or alliance of counties) passes a certain threshold of power that it can beat their neighbours even if all of them turned against you, that's when you form an empire. This happened with the greeks, romans, the mongols, etc. You could prevent that with a no surrender scorched earth culture but even that could be subject to weakening by several psyop tatics we have nowadays and would fade away in a few generations. The bigger a state gets, the harder it is to leave it (due to emigration control, and cultural and/or geographical barriers). If people can't leave, they are forced to put up with bad practices and those bad practices turn the ancap state into a normal state.

@@BRAZILIAN_MIKU "you can easily convince a county to fuse with yours" But why would they? What does anyone get out of it?

@@SoMuchFacepalm better economic deals, standardization of legislature, greater geopolitical influence, sharing of technology and information, reduced cost of border maintenance (cause both counties lose a border), easier aid and recovery in case of emergencies, increased militar power and security, several exploitable geographical advantages, etc. These are the benefits, but remember that people feel the need of unification even when it isn't actually that economically advantageous, they just need to be from the same culture and religion.

o/

No. Authoritarian Capitalism is though. ;)

@MoonManMoonMan authoritarian doesnt sound cool tho!

Yes

@@AntiCommunistCrusaderby definition its not really based since its just the economic and social system that dominates the world, you aren’t really challenging anything

nah Social Democracy is better

That's exactly what I mean

It enforces it; it has to be done only once, since at this point it becomes the private propety of its user and thus of his interest to fructify such (since, thanks to human nature, when something is not private but public, people tend not to care for it since its not just theirs and always delegate the blame to third-parties)

@@josephmariaotf Sounds interesting. I'd like to see it done as an experiment in another country, just not mine. Proof of concept, and all that.

@@notcrazy6288 The Mondragon Corporation already did it.

Words can mean many things for many people, the core of Classical Distributism can be summarised in Chesterton words: " the problem of Capitalism is that there are too few capitalists". There is a confusion between the term collective ownership and spread of ownership of private property. Nevertheless besides the principle of letting the government enforce the widespread ownership of productive property the technical aspects of Classical Distributism is that for either psychological/existential or technical reasons, difficult if not impossible, to restore a widespread distribution of productive property in the manner that Belloc and Chesterton envisaged. How many of the goods and services that we now commonly use are being or could be produced by families labouring on their own productive capital? Think for instance the mobiles or computers we use, the internet service providers and this streaming platform, this and many more goods and services require big organisations with a pyramidal hierarchy to make this complex goods and services, off course the cooperative model can be implemented to provide a dividend but decision making and coordination are better done using a typical corporative organisation for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency. That is why I choose to encourage the study of Douglas Social Credit (completely different from Chinese communist social credit) among distributists since the model of Douglas has technical mechanics and a full fledged set of principles that can be developed into models for different countries or even states depending on their situation and are supported on natural law that can take distributists views into the XXI century. The main mechanism to bring about the dispersion of private property is regarding money as a social credit that belongs to people who give it value in contradistinction to the present debt-money system that monopolizes the control over money presenting a challenge to Classical Distributism. In words of Douglas: The present financial system claims payment in money for the creation of money itself. Since it creates all money, payment in money for the use of money can only be made by creating fresh debt. This situation is progressively serious, since modern production is machines or real capital rather than hand or labour production, so the proportion of salaries and wages to capital charges is progressively less. We have therefore, two problems to solve first: to make it possible for the general population to buy the goods which are produced by a diminishing number of people, and an increasing amount of machinery, without going deeper and deeper into debt; and secondly, to do this by a method which does not require the whole of the population to be employed. (C.H. Douglas and Dennis Robertson, The Douglas Credit Scheme, the BBC listener, June 1933).

Libertarian socialist absolutely has stuff to show for itself, unless you believe Makhnovia, CNT-FAI Catalonia, Allende's Chile, the Zapatistas and Rojava aren't worth anything.

Words can mean many things for many people, the core of Classical Distributism can be summarised in Chesterton words: " the problem of Capitalism is that there are too few capitalists". There is a confusion between the term collective ownership and spread of ownership of private property. Nevertheless the technical aspects of Classical Distributism is that for either psychological/existential or technical reasons, difficult if not impossible, to restore a widespread distribution of productive property in the manner that Belloc and Chesterton envisaged. How many of the goods and services that we now commonly use are being or could be produced by families labouring on their own productive capital? That is why I choose to encourage the study of Douglas Social Credit (compleatly different from Chinese communist social credit) among distributists since the model of Douglas has technical application that can preserve the capitalists class as an aristocracy in tandem with a democracy of consumers.

@@ver939 I don’t think it went mainstream tho until the 2020s

God Bless Martin Luther ! God Bless Historic protestantism !

@ Historic Protestantism is a Hersey. The One True Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church will prevail for Eternity. Also I find it funny you’re Miguel and Spanish yet aren’t Catholic and I’m your stereotypical Ulster Scot/Irish, “gringo” and yet I’m the Catholic. The roles are supposed to be backwards here bro, lol.

@@Wadiyatalkinabeet_ The church is Holy Apostolic Catholic but definitely not under the authority of the papacy . I know lol

@@miguelz8721 I’m sorry but I can’t let you believe this as a fellow Christian it’s my duty to let you know otherwise. But Jesus himself gave the Keys of Earthy Authority to Peter to lead the Church in Matthew 16:18, Brother. By changing Simon’s name to the Greek word of Peter or more accurately, “Pétros” or “Πέτρος” which literally translates to, “rock” in Greek. Therefore, “Amen I tell to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail over it.”-Matthew 16:18. More specifically, Koine Greek which was commonly written and spoken in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 4th century BC until the mid 6th century AD. It was the most widely spoken Greek at the time. It was the language of the Hellenistic period, The Roman Empire and the Classical Latin age, The Early Byzantine Empire and the Greek nobility in Egypt. The Macedonian Dynasties spoke it, and it started developing around Alexander’s time. It’s basically responsible for over 50% of modern Greek, and I’m probably underestimating that number. If Jesus wanted to rename Simon as, “pebble” he’d use the Greek word of, “lithos” or, “λιθος” but he didn’t. He renamed Simon again as Peter, Pétros or Πέτρος again which is rock in Greek. He clearly establishes a Pope, A Vicar of Christ, to lead his One True Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, with Peter’s successor becoming the new Pope. How do we know it’s lead by Rome instead of say, Antioch? Or Constantinople? Or Alexandria? Or even Jerusalem itself? Easy. We know Peter was in Rome through his letters to Paul addressing Christian and Church persecution in Asia Minor, (Anatolia) and The Middle East. Peter’s Epistles explicitly state so. In the greeting at the end of the first epistle, more specifically. The Disciples would use code to communicate back and fourth to each other when writing, often through allusion expressions to avoid getting tracked. That’s why in the greeting at the end of the first epistle, Peter refers to Rome as, “Babylon” in his writing to Paul, “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.”-1 Peter 5:13, knox version. Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles, (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch, (2:1), and 4 Esdras, (3:1). Also in Eusebius Pamphilius. In The Chronicle, composed in about 303 AD, it is noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” These references can’t be to the one-time great capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city” as it once was. I know this was long but I hope you read it and I hope you give Roman Catholicism another chance brother. God Bless and Peace Be With You.

@@miguelz8721 I’m sorry but I can’t let you believe this as a fellow Christian it’s my duty to let you know otherwise. But Jesus himself gave the Keys of Earthy Authority to Peter to lead the Church in Matthew 16:18, Brother. By changing Simon’s name to the Greek word of Peter or more accurately, “Pétros” or “Πέτρος” which literally translates to, “rock” in Greek. Therefore, “Amen I tell to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail over it.”-Matthew 16:18. More specifically, Koine Greek which was commonly written and spoken in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 4th century BC until the mid 6th century AD. It was the most widely spoken Greek at the time. It was the language of the Hellenistic period, The Roman Empire and the Classical Latin age, The Early Byzantine Empire and the Greek nobility in Egypt. The Macedonian Dynasties spoke it, and it started developing around Alexander’s time. It’s basically responsible for over 50% of modern Greek, and I’m probably underestimating that number. If Jesus wanted to rename Simon as, “pebble” he’d use the Greek word of, “lithos” or, “λιθος” but he didn’t. He renamed Simon again as Peter, Pétros or Πέτρος again which is rock in Greek. He clearly establishes a Pope, A Vicar of Christ, to lead his One True Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, with Peter’s successor becoming the new Pope. How do we know it’s lead by Rome instead of say, Antioch? Or Constantinople? Or Alexandria? Or even Jerusalem itself? Easy. We know Peter was in Rome through his letters to Paul addressing Christian and Church persecution in Asia Minor, (Anatolia) and The Middle East. Peter’s Epistles explicitly state so. In the greeting at the end of the first epistle, more specifically. The Disciples would use code to communicate back and fourth to each other when writing, often through allusion expressions to avoid getting tracked. That’s why in the greeting at the end of the first epistle, Peter refers to Rome as, “Babylon” in his writing to Paul, “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.”-1 Peter 5:13, knox version. Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles, (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch, (2:1), and 4 Esdras, (3:1). Also in Eusebius Pamphilius. In The Chronicle, composed in about 303 AD, it is noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” These references can’t be to the one-time great capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city” as it once was. I know this was long but I hope you read it and I hope you give Roman Catholicism another chance brother. God Bless and Peace Be With You.