Even though i may not completely agree with you i still find myself pressing the "Like" button for this video. Im all about the power of the people and plane old democracy and i think it can make the hole world a better place. But now that i think about it things can still go way wrong and if such a system exists that i do not agree with that i simply cant move away from is a truly horrifying thought to realize.
I agree wholeheartedly, the decentralization of people, production, and governance is not only the more efficient and just way to plan society, but it's also the path that developed nations are naturally taking. Decentralization on a massive scale is happening in all nations in the 4th stage of the demographic transition. The world is not becoming more centralized, it is in fact doing the opposite in developed areas, decentralizing, because technology makes it practical.
i think its unwise to post videos on this matter in 1minutes, not only do you "overlook" more complicated cases, you also must overgeneralize and pretend that there is neither opposing nor notable counterarguments.
Spinney, because power turns people into sociopaths who just want more and more of it like a drug addiction, shouldn't we improve ourselves, our pathetic not too different from the Stone Age nature before we try to free ourselves?
I never implied giving sociopaths more power, silly! But because the current human D.N.A. and brain is not too different from Stone Age humans, we should probably genetically improve ourselves while we're trying to free ourselves too at the same time!
@rebelq1 Well I'm not entirely sure that's needed. I mean humans are extremely pliable as it stands now. While we might be genetically negligibly different than stone age humans, we know how to use computers, drive cars and so on. Likewise will we be able to utilize smarter computers, perhaps mechanical augmentation if that's the way society chooses to go, etc.
@rebelq1 I know what it is, the point is how do you think it will come about quicker. Do you not think freedom is capable of delivering that situation? I would argue the opposite, freedom will invariably make it come faster.
First, I don't think that you do know very much about it! Secondly, you're being too optimistic. Societies around the world will most likely be under martial law after the big crash!
As you were talking, I imagined how Rome broke into all the smaller countries that now make up Europe, and how the United States could become like Europe too. If that trend continues, then we would eventually have autonomous communities, totally self-governing, and no nation-states as such.
Limiting it to "town/neighborhood" seems just as arbitrary as limiting it to "nation," since it's even easier to "vote with your feet" if the largest "government" you advocate is a single household.
And, since you don't pick which family you're born to, this also is arbitrary, so why didn't you progressively argue down from "world government" down to "individual governance" as the only rational, non-arbitrary form of government? Why arbitrarily settle on town or neighborhood as "the largest"?
Spinney, the Venus Project will be beyond anarcho-capitalism. It's only called economics now because resources are finite. When we discover a way to make whatever chemical elements that we want out of energy in the future with matter-energy interchangeability principle (E=mc2), the we can expend ourselves beyond our current limitations but first we'll do anarcho-capitalism and improve ourselves genetically! Look up 'transhumanism'!
Localized governments can still be corrupt and resistant to change, because they retain the same monopolistic elements that make larger governments bad. Sure, people *can* vote with their feet, but most people won't unless things get really bad, which gives the gov just that much room to grow. Besides, as long as statism is accepted by the vast majority of the public, the vast majority of things and places will remain statist. However, it gives us some freedom at least.
I sort of disagree with the original quote, after all, an absolute monarchy would run better than our current (semi-limited) government, and a NWO type-entity would not have absolute power, the individuals would be fighting within it.
However, confederations are the best form of government.
You forgot that the more "local" the government, the more difficult it becomes for individuals to do business, especially if the place where they do business is outside the jurisdiction of their government. Think about commuters; one company employing hundreds or thousands of workers with groups of perhaps 10-50 coming from the area with the same government, each with their own sets of regulations. Who'd want to build an international business? Who'd want to commute across two or three borders?
(2) But even without business coming into play, you really think that having a legislative, judicial and executive branches of governments in each neighborhood is feasible? Even if you somehow, magically, find the people to do the job for each town/neighborhood, you're then left with a world so divided that people can't even go to a different town for groceries without their passports, or without paying extra cash on border crossings, or at least without having to mind differences in legislature
But regulations and borders exist largely as a consequence of centralization.
With neighborhood-sized jurisdictions, the cost of moving from one jurisdiction to another becomes much smaller, and so individual states enjoy much less stick. People who want to start businesses or engage in productive trade will seek out less restrictive jurisdictions, and so bureaucrats who want productive tenants will have to restrict their conduct to a higher standard of liberality.
@PanzerDivisionBOM (1) Another reason borders exist is to know where one government's jurisdiction begins and where it ends. Still another is to stop unwanted immigrants. Someone is going to have to watch out for that, as you won't want criminals going to a different neighborhood to escape justice. That said, you haven't addressed a major issue of where you are going to find people to work in the government? Talk about big government, this "solution" boosts its size towards infinity.
@PanzerDivisionBOM (2) Another issue you haven't addressed is the fact that a "multinational" company is going to experience huge losses just keeping track of legislature of thousands of "countries" it would cover. You'd have basically obliterated their existence with this anti-system.
1. I don't know if you know that you're doing it, but you're shifting to a different meaning of the word "big government". We're talking about the power of the state apparatus to invade the property of sovereign individuals. Something which is in part dependant upon the opportunity cost of moving into another jurisdiction.
2. As I've already asserted, jurisdictions which want to attract or benefit from trade with productive individuals, such as "multinationals", would adapt -
- their conduct accordingly, to high standards of liberality and national order. If you impose some restriction upon trade or capital movement just for teh lulz, like modern countries get away with routinely, then they will notice this within a day or two ("What do you mean, you're imposing tarriffs on 'foreign foodstuffs'?"), and you will be unable to hinder them from adjusting their conduct accordingly. -
- Personally, I think such an arrangement would relatively quickly evolve into one of ageographical jurisdictions, with an even firmer foundation in voluntary association and economic liberality. This is in large part based on those problems of unwieldy inter-governmental interactions which you correctly point out.
@PanzerDivisionBOM 1. I don't know if you know that you're doing it, but you're evading a central issue, which is - where are you going to find the men to govern and enforce laws in each of these tiny jurisdictions? I think I made it clear that this is a problem. And when, if ever, you finally do find those people, who's going to pay them? So once again, talk about big government...
@PanzerDivisionBOM 2. I'll grant you most of this, but I think the arrangement would sooner (d)evolve back into a central government; it's much cheaper that way, and it's better that there are no differences in legislature in large areas, particularly for multinationals, so why have all those little states enforcing the same sets of laws? This all is assuming that there is no unrest somewhere in the meantime.
Jacob. We differ on many points but I find myself in total agreement with you here. It's great to find commonality, even though we have different views. Liked and faved.
Limiting state power to the town level is not really good enough as you have to leave behind any belongings that you can't take with you, like a house, if there is some trouble and you have to go away.
What you need is unlimited secession, everyone should be able to join a political organization regardless of their location.
For those who care about such things, here is the exact quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887.
I agree that decentralization of decision making is a good idea, but I can't even bring myself to advocate a state the size of a neighborhood. Liberty is a complete package, and until people realize that, state jurisdictions will only increase in size.
95% agree! The only thing we differ on is the subjective size... you say neighborhood or town, I say... probably at its smallest, the county level, but more realistically, the state level.
I agree with the essence of this video, i.e. individual freedom. The point I have trouble accepting is the idea that a government OUGHT to be no larger than a "town". This seems to put that "town" at a disadvantage in terms of defense.
Jacob I subscribed to you a few months ago,. The funny thing is that i didn't totally agree with the clip that brought me to you. I won't go into it, but suffice to say that I have become a fan. I appreciate your critical thinking and I enjoy your delivery. This clip however is spot on. And it literally boils down the negative of Global gov't down to 1minute and 23 seconds. I challenge anyone to come up with a more succinct and logical explanation, than yours. Bravo. You have my respect. ;)
Individual Rights > Local Government Rights > State Government Rights > Federal Government Rights
In a practical sense, we need to get back to states rights, and things like tax/benefit competition between said states. As much of a craphole of big government MA has become, for example, NH is a viable alternative just miles north of me, if I so choose.
The worst part of big federal governments is that you don't have that choice, It's easy to move from MA to NH, but not USA to Canada.
If moving from one state to another to get away from an intrusive state is better than moving from one country to another, then how about moving from one city to another? Or from one district to another? One block to another?
What if you don't even have to move at all, but just pick up your phone, and transfer your subscription from one ageographical jurisdiction to another?
The tragic truth is localized governments will never happen because they know people would very rapidly start to wonder if they even need governments at all. Can't be having that now can we?
@4lifejackhammer Great, but I was just mentioning that the quote Jacob said at the beginning isn't quite right, if he was trying to accurately quote it that is.
Switzerland is pretty decentralized, and yet it is in great economic shape. We must have Decentralized republics in more nations
TheCaptainjuicy 3 weeks ago
Even though i may not completely agree with you i still find myself pressing the "Like" button for this video. Im all about the power of the people and plane old democracy and i think it can make the hole world a better place. But now that i think about it things can still go way wrong and if such a system exists that i do not agree with that i simply cant move away from is a truly horrifying thought to realize.
KingVego 1 month ago
I agree wholeheartedly, the decentralization of people, production, and governance is not only the more efficient and just way to plan society, but it's also the path that developed nations are naturally taking. Decentralization on a massive scale is happening in all nations in the 4th stage of the demographic transition. The world is not becoming more centralized, it is in fact doing the opposite in developed areas, decentralizing, because technology makes it practical.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
i think its unwise to post videos on this matter in 1minutes, not only do you "overlook" more complicated cases, you also must overgeneralize and pretend that there is neither opposing nor notable counterarguments.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
Funny, everything AnCap Sinney says in this video could just as well have been said by an actual anarchist (Libertarian Socialist).
Unfortunately, he expresses no opposition to the enoumous concentrations of private power with zero accountability.
Nor would he oppose an entire town being privatized and run as a totalitarian state - as long as people were able to escape.
The problem is that such tyrannies should never be permitted to exist in the first place.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
I think the maximum government size should be 1 person.
Dethcrush 9 months ago 2
Who has absolute power?
The government or the Elite who own 93% of US financial wealth?
HopeForPeaceNow 10 months ago
Spinney, because power turns people into sociopaths who just want more and more of it like a drug addiction, shouldn't we improve ourselves, our pathetic not too different from the Stone Age nature before we try to free ourselves?
rebelq1 10 months ago
@rebelq1 That makes no sense, why give sociopaths more power? They should have extremely limited power.
The more you think people are not angels the more you must be for freedom and against a central society.
s0beit 10 months ago
@s0beit
I never implied giving sociopaths more power, silly! But because the current human D.N.A. and brain is not too different from Stone Age humans, we should probably genetically improve ourselves while we're trying to free ourselves too at the same time!
rebelq1 10 months ago
@rebelq1 Well I'm not entirely sure that's needed. I mean humans are extremely pliable as it stands now. While we might be genetically negligibly different than stone age humans, we know how to use computers, drive cars and so on. Likewise will we be able to utilize smarter computers, perhaps mechanical augmentation if that's the way society chooses to go, etc.
s0beit 10 months ago
@s0beit
Just look up 'transhumanism' and be quiet!
rebelq1 10 months ago
@rebelq1 I know what it is, the point is how do you think it will come about quicker. Do you not think freedom is capable of delivering that situation? I would argue the opposite, freedom will invariably make it come faster.
s0beit 10 months ago
@s0beit
First, I don't think that you do know very much about it! Secondly, you're being too optimistic. Societies around the world will most likely be under martial law after the big crash!
rebelq1 10 months ago
Faved.
ManOfDeath567 10 months ago
As you were talking, I imagined how Rome broke into all the smaller countries that now make up Europe, and how the United States could become like Europe too. If that trend continues, then we would eventually have autonomous communities, totally self-governing, and no nation-states as such.
repfreedomforce 10 months ago
Limiting it to "town/neighborhood" seems just as arbitrary as limiting it to "nation," since it's even easier to "vote with your feet" if the largest "government" you advocate is a single household.
And, since you don't pick which family you're born to, this also is arbitrary, so why didn't you progressively argue down from "world government" down to "individual governance" as the only rational, non-arbitrary form of government? Why arbitrarily settle on town or neighborhood as "the largest"?
GabrielKoulikov 10 months ago
@GabrielKoulikov You should see my other videos. This video was an attempt at building a bit more receptivity to my actual views.
JacobSpinney 10 months ago 4
@JacobSpinney
Spinney, the Venus Project will be beyond anarcho-capitalism. It's only called economics now because resources are finite. When we discover a way to make whatever chemical elements that we want out of energy in the future with matter-energy interchangeability principle (E=mc2), the we can expend ourselves beyond our current limitations but first we'll do anarcho-capitalism and improve ourselves genetically! Look up 'transhumanism'!
rebelq1 10 months ago
I think spawktalk implied a very controversial idea, that individuals come from groups. Maybe you should address this.
MirageScience 10 months ago
Thanks for making a short and simple video!
ericfontainejazz 10 months ago
Government = FAIL
steveoo5 10 months ago
Localized governments can still be corrupt and resistant to change, because they retain the same monopolistic elements that make larger governments bad. Sure, people *can* vote with their feet, but most people won't unless things get really bad, which gives the gov just that much room to grow. Besides, as long as statism is accepted by the vast majority of the public, the vast majority of things and places will remain statist. However, it gives us some freedom at least.
Houshalter 10 months ago
100% agreed Jacob. =)
MrScar7X 10 months ago
Right, this is why I want to see charter cities.
Libertarianist 10 months ago
How do you deal with negative externalities that cross established borders?
mrobinson16326 10 months ago
@mrobinson16326 Thats the dilemma. I want secure borders without centralization.
jimbobubbadj 10 months ago
Diversity is strength!
....Unless it's in governments.
Problem?
Morrakiu 10 months ago
There's so many things I could say but I won't because I just woke up...
Yewon2001 10 months ago
Switzerland!
CelticKraut 10 months ago
great men are almost always bad men
~John Dalberg-Acton
curiositygun93 10 months ago
Excellent video. Thanks for posting.
carcabe 10 months ago
Great job man.
truefictions 10 months ago
I sort of disagree with the original quote, after all, an absolute monarchy would run better than our current (semi-limited) government, and a NWO type-entity would not have absolute power, the individuals would be fighting within it.
However, confederations are the best form of government.
SaviorOfLogic 10 months ago
You forgot that the more "local" the government, the more difficult it becomes for individuals to do business, especially if the place where they do business is outside the jurisdiction of their government. Think about commuters; one company employing hundreds or thousands of workers with groups of perhaps 10-50 coming from the area with the same government, each with their own sets of regulations. Who'd want to build an international business? Who'd want to commute across two or three borders?
ReasonSharp 10 months ago
(2) But even without business coming into play, you really think that having a legislative, judicial and executive branches of governments in each neighborhood is feasible? Even if you somehow, magically, find the people to do the job for each town/neighborhood, you're then left with a world so divided that people can't even go to a different town for groceries without their passports, or without paying extra cash on border crossings, or at least without having to mind differences in legislature
ReasonSharp 10 months ago
@ReasonSharp
But regulations and borders exist largely as a consequence of centralization.
With neighborhood-sized jurisdictions, the cost of moving from one jurisdiction to another becomes much smaller, and so individual states enjoy much less stick. People who want to start businesses or engage in productive trade will seek out less restrictive jurisdictions, and so bureaucrats who want productive tenants will have to restrict their conduct to a higher standard of liberality.
PanzerDivisionBOM 10 months ago 3
@PanzerDivisionBOM (1) Another reason borders exist is to know where one government's jurisdiction begins and where it ends. Still another is to stop unwanted immigrants. Someone is going to have to watch out for that, as you won't want criminals going to a different neighborhood to escape justice. That said, you haven't addressed a major issue of where you are going to find people to work in the government? Talk about big government, this "solution" boosts its size towards infinity.
ReasonSharp 10 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM (2) Another issue you haven't addressed is the fact that a "multinational" company is going to experience huge losses just keeping track of legislature of thousands of "countries" it would cover. You'd have basically obliterated their existence with this anti-system.
ReasonSharp 10 months ago
@ReasonSharp
1. I don't know if you know that you're doing it, but you're shifting to a different meaning of the word "big government". We're talking about the power of the state apparatus to invade the property of sovereign individuals. Something which is in part dependant upon the opportunity cost of moving into another jurisdiction.
2. As I've already asserted, jurisdictions which want to attract or benefit from trade with productive individuals, such as "multinationals", would adapt -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 10 months ago
-
- their conduct accordingly, to high standards of liberality and national order. If you impose some restriction upon trade or capital movement just for teh lulz, like modern countries get away with routinely, then they will notice this within a day or two ("What do you mean, you're imposing tarriffs on 'foreign foodstuffs'?"), and you will be unable to hinder them from adjusting their conduct accordingly. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 10 months ago
-
- Personally, I think such an arrangement would relatively quickly evolve into one of ageographical jurisdictions, with an even firmer foundation in voluntary association and economic liberality. This is in large part based on those problems of unwieldy inter-governmental interactions which you correctly point out.
So all around, good stuff.
PanzerDivisionBOM 10 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM 1. I don't know if you know that you're doing it, but you're evading a central issue, which is - where are you going to find the men to govern and enforce laws in each of these tiny jurisdictions? I think I made it clear that this is a problem. And when, if ever, you finally do find those people, who's going to pay them? So once again, talk about big government...
ReasonSharp 10 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM 2. I'll grant you most of this, but I think the arrangement would sooner (d)evolve back into a central government; it's much cheaper that way, and it's better that there are no differences in legislature in large areas, particularly for multinationals, so why have all those little states enforcing the same sets of laws? This all is assuming that there is no unrest somewhere in the meantime.
ReasonSharp 10 months ago
Jacob. We differ on many points but I find myself in total agreement with you here. It's great to find commonality, even though we have different views. Liked and faved.
CaptainFrantic 10 months ago
Limiting state power to the town level is not really good enough as you have to leave behind any belongings that you can't take with you, like a house, if there is some trouble and you have to go away.
What you need is unlimited secession, everyone should be able to join a political organization regardless of their location.
utuebmakeustupid 10 months ago
For those who care about such things, here is the exact quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887.
utuebmakeustupid 10 months ago
I agree that decentralization of decision making is a good idea, but I can't even bring myself to advocate a state the size of a neighborhood. Liberty is a complete package, and until people realize that, state jurisdictions will only increase in size.
t3hsauce 10 months ago
Well said.
SpookyFan 10 months ago
95% agree! The only thing we differ on is the subjective size... you say neighborhood or town, I say... probably at its smallest, the county level, but more realistically, the state level.
eagleeye1975 10 months ago
I find you to be one of the most well-spoken intelligent people I've met. Love your videos
LedinToke 10 months ago
I agree with the essence of this video, i.e. individual freedom. The point I have trouble accepting is the idea that a government OUGHT to be no larger than a "town". This seems to put that "town" at a disadvantage in terms of defense.
waterstrike08 10 months ago
But without centralized government, how can I get them to give me my neighbor's stuff?
DKshad0w 10 months ago 46
@DKshad0w Just take it.
darklord220 10 months ago
Jacob I subscribed to you a few months ago,. The funny thing is that i didn't totally agree with the clip that brought me to you. I won't go into it, but suffice to say that I have become a fan. I appreciate your critical thinking and I enjoy your delivery. This clip however is spot on. And it literally boils down the negative of Global gov't down to 1minute and 23 seconds. I challenge anyone to come up with a more succinct and logical explanation, than yours. Bravo. You have my respect. ;)
nprbiz 10 months ago 18
wow only a 1:23. I was just getting use to watching you for hours.
lashkaretoiba 10 months ago
Individual Rights > Local Government Rights > State Government Rights > Federal Government Rights
In a practical sense, we need to get back to states rights, and things like tax/benefit competition between said states. As much of a craphole of big government MA has become, for example, NH is a viable alternative just miles north of me, if I so choose.
The worst part of big federal governments is that you don't have that choice, It's easy to move from MA to NH, but not USA to Canada.
jrsub3 10 months ago
@jrsub3
You do have a point. But consider this:
If moving from one state to another to get away from an intrusive state is better than moving from one country to another, then how about moving from one city to another? Or from one district to another? One block to another?
What if you don't even have to move at all, but just pick up your phone, and transfer your subscription from one ageographical jurisdiction to another?
PanzerDivisionBOM 10 months ago 4
The whole 50 state thing was a good start, but the federal government figured out how to fuck that up too.
NoNameC68 10 months ago
The tragic truth is localized governments will never happen because they know people would very rapidly start to wonder if they even need governments at all. Can't be having that now can we?
lordthawkeye 10 months ago 2
The adage is power "tends" to corrupt, if that's what you were going for.
Dabba23 10 months ago
@Dabba23 historically speaking, its not a question of whether a system will become corrupt; it's a question of when.
4lifejackhammer 10 months ago
@4lifejackhammer Great, but I was just mentioning that the quote Jacob said at the beginning isn't quite right, if he was trying to accurately quote it that is.
Dabba23 10 months ago
I think a lot of people believe we should never be ungoverned, even if we are halfway across the galaxy or something. :(
Donatellangelo 10 months ago
YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY
Apptendo 10 months ago
Beautiful.
machwon 10 months ago