Reading Rothbard's 'Nations by Consent' w/ Aaron from Timeline Earth

Crown coins to single winning never sounded so good. What would you do if you won big at crown coins casino Real people win real prices every single day. Hi, this is Michael from Dallas and I won 40k and finally renovated my home Visit crowncoins.com sign up in seconds intercode crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus You may win up to 10,000 sweeps coins crowncoins.com that's C-R-O-W and coins.com. No purchase needed Code Val for new users on void were prohibited by law 18 plus terms and conditions apply I want to welcome everyone back to the peeking in a show seems like you were just here like a couple weeks ago. What's gone on air? Oh same old in a happy homeowner just talking about mowing lawns. I don't even want to get into that at this point the move. It's therapeutic man The move broke my body. I mean it's broken. Yeah, so don't do that again. I'm dying here I wanted to go back and cover something that what's funny is a lot of libertarians will look at 90s Rothbard and just completely ignore him He became a racist. He became this he became that and everything But the I think this is actually the last thing he wrote. It's called nations by consent And there's a lot in here and especially for the time that he was writing it and I can see this is something that may not have been Is important like in the 2000s because in 9/11 everything like everything was chaos We're living in a different chaos now, but I think this means more this this essay means more Because I think a lot of people are more open to the idea of of nations the concept of a nation that he talks about in this. Yeah, let's roll Alright, let's do it. Let me share this and and I'll start reading stop whenever nations by consent decomposing the nation state Murray and Rothbard Libertarians tend to focus on two important units of analysis the individual and the state and yet one of the most dramatic and significant events of our time has been the Reemergence with a bang in the last five years of a third and much neglected aspect of the real world the nation He's writing this in 1994 so you know obviously he's going to talk about it the Soviet Union broke apart and yeah the concept of the nation reappears When the nation has been thought of at all it usually comes attached to the state as in the common word the nation state But this concept takes a particular development in of recent but this concept takes a particular development of recent centuries and elaborates it into universal maximum In the last five years however we have seen as a corollary of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe A vivid and starting startlingly swift decomposition of the centralized state or alleged nation state into its constituent nationalities The genuine nation or nationality has made a dramatic reappearance on the world stage So the first thing I think of is the Balkans during this time I know in 95 we were in Kosovo And was it like the Bosnian Serbs and all that all that shit was going down with a Clinton dropping bombs on everybody and now it's a byproduct of the collapse of the Soviet Union They were really the only thing holding those fake fake fake states together fake nation states I think of how much this scared a lot of people especially for the sake let's just call them the Neocons right now Because these are people who are against the idea of nationality these are people who are against the idea of homogeneity And to see people talking about nations again just scares them Because they have decided that nations cannot be homogenous anymore and that if they are to be homogenous they must be controlled by the United States I don't think it's something that libertarians or even conservatives think about that often is the tension between the nation and the state They're not they're not one of the same which for a while I kind of thought they were kind of interchangeable but like you said recently that's kind of come back into the forate Part one the reemer the reemergence of the nation the nation of course is not the same thing as the state a difference that earlier libertarians in classical liberals such as livic on mises and upper chain knock understood full well Contemporary libertarians often assume mistakenly that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange So right here he's completely going off the rails with a lot of libertarianism this is this is why a lot of libertarianism says you know we don't talk about 90s rock bar because even in the first even in the first paragraph of this The term blood and soil immediately came into came to mind yeah that is decidedly non-meses in yeah they forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family a language and a culture Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities usually including an ethnic group with specific values cultures religious beliefs and traditions He is generally born into a country he is always born into a specific historical context of time and place meaning neighborhood and land an area that's a very time and being born into time and place is very right You know something that libertarians are not going to touch most well the modern European nation state the typical major power began not as a nation at all but as an imperial conquest of one nationality Usually at the center of the resulting country and based in the capital city over other nationalities at the periphery Since a nation is a complex of subjective feelings of nationality based on objective realities the imperial central states have had varying degrees of success in forging among their subject nationalities at the periphery a sense of national unity incorporating submission to the imperial center In Great Britain the English have never truly eradicated national aspirations among the submerged Celtic nationalities the Scots and the Welsh although Cornish nationalism seems to have been mostly stamped out In Spain the conquering Castilians based in Madrid have never managed as the world saw at the Barcelona Olympics to erase nationalism among the Catalans the Basques or even the Galatians and the Lucians the French moving out of their base in Paris have never totally tamed the Bretons the Basques and the people of the lung I apologize to my French my French friends out there is at the Languedoc yes I was about right yeah it is now well known that the collapse of the centralizing an imperial Russian Soviet Union has lifted the lid on the dozens of previously suppressed nationalism within the former USSR and it is now becoming clear that Russia itself or rather the Russian federated republic is simply a slightly older imperial formation in which the Russians moving out from their Moscow center forcibly incorporated many nationalities including the Tarders the Yakuts and Chechens and many others much of the USSR stemmed from the imperial Russian conquest in the 19th century during which the clash clashing Russians and British managed to carve up much of central Asia. So we're getting a getting a history lesson here on country versus the empire and country versus nationality all right and I just happen to notice I was going to say he's a giant blind spot here is religion but I see it's coming up. When the Russians when the Soviet Union fell a friend of mine at the time said that he didn't think it would there was a question of whether they would try to get back together real quick and everything he said once people get it once the Christians get a taste of being able to worship as they wish they're not going to allow it. Yeah yeah no chance the nation cannot be precisely be fine it is a. complex and varying constellation of different forms of communities, languages, ethnic groups, or religions. Some nations or nationalities, such as the Slovenes, are both a separate ethnic group and a religion. Others, such as the warring groups in Bosnia, are the same ethnic group whose language is the same, but who differ in the form of alphabet and who clash fiercely on religion. The Eastern Orthodox serves the Catholic Croats and the Bosnian Muslims, who, to make matters more complicated, were originally champions of the Manekeian Bogomil Heresy. Yep, good old Balkans. There is, I can't remember where it is, and I heard it once, like, when I was going on, like, a total Rothbard, like, trying to listen to everything he had ever done, where he was giving this discussion on, like, Calvinism, and he understood Calvinism better than most of the Calvinists I knew. I mean, yeah, he, I still don't understand Calvinism. The question of nationality has made more complex by the interplay of objectively existing reality and subjective perceptions. In some cases, such as the Eastern European nationalities under the Habsburgs or the Irish under the British nationalisms, including submerged and sometimes dying languages, had to be consciously preserved, generated, and expanded. In the 19th century, this was done by the determined, by determined, intellectually elite, struggling to revive peripheries, living under, and partially absorbed by the imperial censor. I wonder, I wish you would get into more detail about that. Opportunistically, reviving a dead culture, dead language, dead religion in order to maintain power. You can think of one that's not getting into that right now. Part two, the fallacy of collective security. The problem of the nation has been aggravated in the 20th century by the overriding influence of Wilsonianism on US and worldwide foreign policy. I refer not to the idea of national self-determination, observed mainly in the breach after WWI, but into the concept of collective security against aggression. The fatal flaw in the seductive concept is that it treats nation-states by an analogy with individual aggressors, with the world community and the guys of a cop on the corner. The cop, for example, sees a) aggressing against or stealing the property of b) the cop naturally rushes to defend b) private property in his personal possessions. In the same way, struggling to make that connection now it is. Maybe this is just too simple for cops. In the same way, wars between two nations or states are assumed to have a similar aspect. State A invades or aggressors against state b) state A has promptly designated the aggressor by the international policeman or his presumptive seriet, be it the League of Nations, the United Nations, or the US President or Secretary of State, or the editorial writer of the August New York Times. This is Michael from Georgia, I-140k, and finally renovated my home. Visit crowncoins.com, sign up in seconds, intercode crown, and get a free lucky wheel bonus. You may win at the 10,000 sweepscoins, crowncoins.com that's C-R-O-W-N-Coins.com, no purchase needed. This doesn't sound familiar. We haven't seen anything like this recently, right? Recently, a hundred times in our lifetime. The one that's going on right now, where the former vice president of the United States says, "No, you can fix America." The argument about who's the aggressor, well, hey, let me expand upon this. The reason why it's important to argue online about Ukraine is because painting Russia as the aggressor that just happened to decide one day to invade Ukraine for no possible reason, you can't allow people to do that, especially people with power and influence. They can't do that. One of the good things about social media is that it's the ratio. The ratio has been the greatest tool for things like this, and you see it happen all the time, and that lets us know that we're not alone in being like, "Huh, I don't remember it that way." I'm not somebody who is deluded enough to think that Musk saving the world with what he's doing with Twitter, or that it's a free speech platform or anything like that, but the community notes thing has been very interesting when it comes to a lot going on there, and it's been powerful in a couple. Of course, somebody will put something up ridiculous, and they'll, "Oh, we got a fact check that when it's obvious sarcasm or just parody," but I think that's another thing on top of the ratio. I never did it before, but I think it's part of having the blue check and the blue check like moves you up in the comments, is I've been ratioing the crap out of a lot of people in their posts, and not even trying, because everything is so ridiculous at this point, if you just make a cogent observation to the contrary, people jump all over it. Yeah. The question I have is how many ratios does it take for them to recalculate their approach? Like, if you look at Mike Pence recently at Iowa, Tucker Carlson basically just destroyed him. I mean, Mike Pence destroyed Mike Pence with his, some of his responses, and he's been trying to do damage control all day today, and it hasn't been working out for him very well, and it's just, even if nothing comes of it, he might very well sail into the primary with, I doubt it, but even if it wasn't Mike Pence, if it was Trump and Tucker destroyed him and he was getting ratioed all day on Twitter, he might still sail into the primary and it won't have any effect, but for right now, it is heartening to see, like it's a little bit of a white pill, and sometimes that's the biggest W you can take. Well, I think an interesting thing with the Pence is that he put up the whole video which basically, in context shows that, okay, he was taking out a context a little bit, but I don't care, I commented out of context because I don't care anymore, I don't care about what he said or not is portraying what he said as being as accurate, to care about propaganda, and I care about people looking at and believing that he cares more about Ukrainians than he does Americans, and I'm not going to apologize for that. And you have to think a certain portion of people, probably more than half think exactly like that, like I know that this was taken out of context, I just want to ratio Mike Pence because I hate him. Yep, yep, it's unless the spirits. Yeah, when more people start realizing that that's how propaganda works, and that's how they've been using it against you for the longest time, and now you have a little bit of a chance to start using it against them, come off, come off your fucking high horse. And yeah, all right, then the world police force, whatever it may be, is supposed to swing promptly into action to stop the principle of aggression or to prevent the aggressor, be it Saddam Hussein or the Serbian guerrillas in Bosnia or Vladimir Putin or all that, from fulfilling their presumed goals of swimming across the Atlantic and murdering every resident of New York or Washington DC or they could just use planes. Yeah, but I get what he's saying. Yeah, it inevitably devolves into, you know, if we don't fight them there, then we have to fight them here or it devolves into literally Hitler. Now, there's, yeah, there's a ton of like inarguable tropes that they devolve into that are designed to make you non-pageriotic if you disagree with them. Yeah, the whole idea of you have to fight them over there. So you know, fight them over here and then they invoke 9/11. I mean, ignore Even if you accept the official narrative of 9/11 that doesn't work, a terrorist attack isn't, I mean, you're not going to stop a terrorist attack, you're not going to stop an ambush because that's, I mean, you could, you could do it with good, you know, intelligence. But I don't think delaying the inevitable, yeah, yeah. The crucial flaw is the implicit assumption of the entire analysis that every nation state owns its entire geographical area in the same just and proper way that every individual property owner owns his person and the property that he has inherited, worked for or gained in voluntary exchange is the boundary of the typical nation state really as just or as beyond Kavil as your or my house estate or factory. Okay, so now he's just going to go and get into some libertarian, uh, you know, just, I mean, yeah, it happened as a great does well with this, I think. It seems to me that not only the classical liberal or libertarian, but anyone in good sense who thinks about this problem must answer or he's sounding no. It is observed to designate every nation state with its self proclaimed boundary as it exists at any one time as some how right and sacri-sanked each with its territorial integrity to remain as spotless and unbreached as your or my bodily person or private property. I think I know where he's going with this. Yeah. Invariably, of course, these boundaries have been acquired by force and violence or by interstate agreement above and beyond the heads of the inhabitants on the spot and invariably these boundaries shift a great deal over time and ways that make proclamations of territorial integrity truly ludicrous. Take for example, the current mass in Bosnia, only a couple of years ago, establishment opinion received opinion of left right or center loudly proclaim the importance of maintaining the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and bitterly denounced all secession movements. Now only a short time later, the same establishment only recently defending the Serbs as champions of the Yugoslav nation against vicious secessionist movements trying to destroy that integrity now reviles in which is to crush the Serbs for aggression against the territorial integrity of Bosnia or Bosnia, Herznikovina, a trumped up nation that had no more existence than the nation of Nebraska before 1991. Huh, almost like Ukraine, but do you remember when this whole Ukraine thing started and NATO was putting out memes that like Ukraine existed before Russia? Yeah, it's it's insane. Yeah, it was like, oh, well, I've never had, I've never had chicken keave, but when they were saying that Kiev, Kiev had palaces and everything while Moscow was still a swamp. Yeah. Okay. Well, what about St. Pete or Petrograd or whatever we want to call it? Yeah. All right. All right. Bobo Bobo, where am I? All right. But these are the pitfalls in which we are bound to fall if we remain trapped by the mythology of the nation state whose chance boundary at the time must be re-upheld as a property owning entity with its own sacred and inviolable rights in a deeply followed analogy with the rights of private property. To adopt an excellent strategy of living upon meases and abstracting from temporary from contemporary emotions, let us populate two continuous nation states, Ruretania and Ferdonia, let us assume that Ruretania had suddenly invaded Eastern Ferdonia and claims it as its own. Must we automatically condemn Ruretania for its evil act of aggression against Ferdonia and send troops either literally or metaphorically against the brutal Ruretanians and in behalf of brave little Ferdonia by no means. For it is very possible that say two years earlier, Eastern Ferdonia had been part and parcel of Ruretania was indeed Western Ruretania and that the Rures, ethnic and national denizens of the land, have been crying out for the past two years against Ferdonia and oppression. What does this sound like? It's so weird. He's like a seer. A Jewish seer. In short, international disputes in particular in the immortal words of W.S. Gilbert, things are seldom what they seem. Schemmilk masquerades is cream, pretty good. The beloved international cop, whether it be Putros-Butros-Galley or U.S. troops or the New York Times editorialists, had best think more than twice before leaping into the fray. They're not going to. "Winning never sounded so good, what would you do if you won big, had crown coins casino, real people win real prizes every single day?" "Hi, this is Michael from Georgia, I won 40k and finally renovated my home." Visit crowncoins.com, sign up in seconds, enter code crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus. You may win at the 10,000 sweeps coins, crowncoins.com, that's C-R-O-W-N-Coins.com. No purchase needed. Code Val for new users only. Read by law 18 plus terms and attention supply. Americans are especially unsuited for their self-proclaimed willsonian role as world moralists and policemen. Nationalism in the U.S. is peculiarly recent and is more of an idea than it is rooted in longstanding ethnic or nationality groups or struggles. I hate to tell people that, but this country has had multiple cultures right from the start. "Yeah, I don't understand people that look at the entire contiguous United States and say, 'I'm a nationalist,' like, 'I love being a Yankee provincialist, I love it and I will defend that to the death,' because I don't care if you're from the South, like, I just don't care. I don't care if you're from the West, like, I like my culture, I like my people, if the national divorce ever comes, I don't particularly care what happens to anything beyond the borders of my county, let alone my state." Well said, let's say that lost anything, let's say that. Add to that deadly mix, the fact that Americans have virtually no historical memory, and this makes Americans peculiarly unsuited to barreling into intervene in the Balkans, where who take what side, who took what side at what place in the war against the Turkish invaders in the 15th century is far more intensely real, to most of the contenders than is yesterday's dinner. "Oh, man, yeah, it's like Americans want to think, 'Oh, so your country didn't even exist when this was, when all this started, when this tension started." "One thing that unites them all, though, they all hate the Turks." Libertarians and classical liberals, who are peculiarly well equipped to rethink the entire muddled area of the nation, state, and foreign affairs, have been too wrapped up in the Cold War against communism and the Soviet Union to engage in fundamental thinking on these issues. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed and the Cold War is over, perhaps classical liberals will feel free to think a new about these critically important problems. "No, I see classical liberals and people who openly call themselves classical liberals on social media, railing against Putin and supporting Ukraine. They say they're not supporting Ukraine, but they really are. Yeah. Part of the rest were two or three years ago, they couldn't find a map. Yeah. And that's some of them can now." Part three. That's ridiculous, bud. Yeah. Yeah. Part three. Rethinking cessation. Yeah. First, we can conclude that not all state boundaries are just. One goal for libertarians should be to transform existing nation states into national entities whose boundaries could be called just in the same sense that private property boundaries are just, that is, to decompose existing coercive nation states into genuine nations or nations by consent. What do you think? It sounds a little flowery, nations by consent. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a terrible term. I mean, I don't like the term just because consent is just automatically tied to libertarianism and when it comes down to it, most people who cry about consent are against voluntary or voluntary associations by rape. Well, the whole thing about consent is that it can be retracted at any time, and that's kind of what we have right now where whole swaths of the population are retracting their consent to live in what would otherwise be a stable productive society in favor of socialism or, I don't know, I think they all want to be in an open air hospice with everything taken care of and constantly going to go bliss and instant access to porn and all that. I mean, you're withdraw, like you can say that about not just a nation, but just your social order to begin with, can you withdraw that consent and be fine? I would say no, like you can, but you have to go. Yeah, I just look at this and I'm thinking that a lot of the people that I know who would want nations by consent would want it in a way that a lot of people who would be okay with nations by consent wouldn't want it to be. So if somebody wants an ethno state, there are other people who may want nations by consent are going to be like, no, we can't allow an ethno state. Yeah, if an ethno state exists. Yeah, in that sense, I would agree with it, but I think people only address the formation of that nation by consent and not keeping it and what that would require to keep it. Like you said, they're not going to look like what that requires. All right. In the case, for example, of the Eastern Fredonians, the inhabitants should be able to concede voluntarily from Fredonia and join their comrades in Ruitania. Again, classical liberal should resist the impulse to say that national boundaries don't make any difference. It's true, of course, as classical liberals have long proclaimed that the less the degree of government intervention in either Fredonia or Ruitania, the less difference much such a boundary will make. But even under a minimal state, national boundaries would still make a difference often a big one to the inhabitants of the area. Or in what language, Ruitanian or Fredonian or both will be the street signs, telephone books, court proceedings, or school or school classes of the area. In short, every group, every nationality should be allowed to secede from any from any nation state and to join any other nation state that agrees to have it. That simply, that simple reform would go a long way toward establishing nations by consent. The Scots if they want. Yeah. I mean, we're going through that right now, where only in the context of fragmenting the fragmenting political situation with school boards and local governments that are being taken over and then that consent is manufactured. And this is again a key weakness of libertarianism. How do you fight against social engineering or manufacturing this consent? Right. Yeah. If that's one thing about about consent and trying to establish nations by consent out of multicultural nations is that you already have people who fought for fought and to get and have received special privileges, powers and removing a certain class of people or multiple classes of people removing themselves from that situation are going to stand in the way of that, now that power is taken away from them, and not only the power it could be taken away from them, but the means by which the funds to finance that are being now removed, they can no longer be ex-prograde. Yeah. It all goes back to that fundamental flaw, how do you manage social engineering? Yeah. The Scots, if they want to, should be allowed by the English to leave the United Kingdom or to become independent and even to join a Gaelic Confederation, if they can stitch you in so desire. A common response to a world of proliferating nations is to worry about the multitude of trade barriers that might be erected. I'm not worried about that at all, but other things being equal, the greater the number of new nations, I'm passed, I abandoned whether something is good or not by Lyme go up a while ago. Yeah. I don't care about Lyme go up. I can see how a Balkanization of a bunch of different areas would be a massive bloated globalism, but I don't think it's plausible today to expect that if that situation were to occur, it would be in service of globalism. It would be Balkanizing a nation that was uncooperative to the world back. But other things being equal, the greater the number of new nations and the smaller the size of each, the better, for it would be far more difficult to sow the illusion of self-sufficiency at the slogan where by North Dakota or even by 56th Street, then it now is to convince the public to buy American. Similarly, down with South Dakota or Fortiori down with 55th Street would be a more difficult seldom spreading fear or hatred of the Japanese. Similarly, the absurdities and the unfortunate consequences of fiat paper money would be far more evident if each province or each neighborhood or street or block were to print its own currency. A more decentralized world would be far more likely to turn to sound market commodities such as gold or silver for its money. And I think this is where even a lot of non-liberitarians can agree with this because I think a lot are kind of second-tired of one group controlling the money. Yeah. Yep. I mean, look at the excitement around the whole bricks thing. I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think we'll ever have a. I think the dollar hegemony has a long while to go before something displaces it. And just the excitement around the prospect of something competing with it has been ghoulsig. Yeah. And does speak to the fact that we are pretty tired of it no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Right. And. or more importantly, watching what the reaction is from those who are in control right now. Oh, yeah. Like, the mass coming off every single time. Yeah. Alright, part four, the pure anarcho-capitalist model. I raised the pure anarcho-capitalist. Was that a big sigh? Big sigh. Did I skip this part? I raised the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper not so much to advocate the model per se, as to propose it as a guide for settling the vex to current disputes about nationality. The pure model simply is that no land area is no square footage in the world shall remain public. Every square foot of land area by. by the street squares or neighborhoods is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems often in surprising ways and I suggest that existing streets or classical liberal states try to approach such a system while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere. If only there was a group of people that had no ties to any nation that could steward us into this great beyond. Thanks, Rothbard. Oh, bye. Drown coins to see go! Winning never sounded so good. What would you do if you won big? At Crown Coins Casino, real people win real prizes every single day. Hi, this is Michael from Dallas and I won 40K and finally renovated my home. Visit crowncoins.com. Find up in seconds, enter code crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus. You may win up to 10,000 sweeps coins. Crowncoins.com. That's c-r-o-w-n-coins.com. No purchase needed. Code Val for new users on void were prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply. Open borders were the camp of the saints problem. Here we go. The question of open borders or free immigration has become an accelerating leak, accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance. And second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. You know, like five years ago. years ago, the first part of that would have been way more important than the second part of that. But that has definitely been turned around. It's like, it's also like Israel thing. I used to be like, oh, look at the way Israel treats the Palestinians. Now I'm just like, I don't want Israel or anyone from Israel to have any influence over my life whatsoever. Yeah, but it'll be interesting to see what we can, what we can apply to today from this. Yeah. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these people, peoples. Hmm. Previously, it had been easy to distinguish what they did. I mean, they're doing it now. No, they, oh, yeah. I mean, it's been, it's just been, yeah. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss this unrealistic genre of spouse, anti-immigration novel to camp of the saints in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move in small boats into France and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. Camp of the Saints is one of those books that you could find one hard copy of on Amazon for like $350. No, nothing digital. I think it's more expensive than that. I have a paperback version of it that was, somebody had released on their own on Amazon a couple of years ago and just happened to, to snag a copy. But I know people who have hardcover copies. And I, I think there are PDFs out there. I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure I have a PDF of it. It's probably, probably library Genesis has it. I haven't looked in a while. Get with me after the show. Okay. Okay. As cultural and welfare state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss rest bells concerns any longer. However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have open borders at all. I, if there's a free market, there's a free market on labor. Yeah. If there's a free market on labor, that means that people can come from anywhere. Yes. And you are free to invite whoever you want. And if they change the culture, hey, at least you have a dollar, a dollar a pound oranges. Yeah. Yeah. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person group or corporation, still on the corporation thing, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the, as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. Well, there's a thing, isn't it? How are you going to get every property owner to be on board? You know, if one allows somebody to come onto their property and to move, and to move across their property and jump defense onto another person's property, that's not their problem. They just invited that person on their property and they have no, they are not compelled to stop that person from jumping onto somebody else's property, that they wouldn't have been able to had they not been allowed onto that property. They have no moral obligation and they have no legal obligation under that system to stop that person from jumping onto somebody else's property and committing violence against them. I wonder if there's any NGOs and and and capistan. You think if there is, then all right. Well, they're, I mean, they're corporate, they're, all they have, all they would have to do is register as a corporation, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and I guess social engineers are going to disappear, right? Social, if everything's private property, social engineers won't have, I mean, everything is not going to be private property. Business owners, business owners are not going to be like, that street is pride, you know, is going to be like, Oh, that street right there, leaving to my house, I'm going to, if they, if leaving to their store, they're going to buy that street and allow anybody to, to go on that street that they want to. If it maximizes profits, then yes. Yes. Yes. Because line, because line has to go up. Yes. And if line doesn't go up, it's a failure. Yeah. And you need to revisit the model. And if the model says we need more cheap labor, then you get into, okay, who do we need to lobby to change the rules to allow that? Who do we need to, what messages do we need to put out to the populace in order to get, at least somewhat of a proportion of them to support it so that we can manufacture the consent to get these rules passed? Right. So you get, it's no different than you have right now. It's just a, I guess it's a different, different avenues, but same idea. Right. And whenever you have any type of large populace, you get politics. And you're going to have, as you do now, so that's one of the dumbest arguments I think that like anarchists try to come up with is you're always bringing up, you're always bringing up these hypotheticals for what would happen in an capistan that happened now. Well, if they're happening now with a monopoly on violence, what makes you think that it would get any better without one? Yeah. I mean, if we had an capistan to compare to, and I'm not, I'm not going down like the road of, oh, and anarchism has never been tried there for it's stupid. Like that's, I, I don't care about that. It's, it's more so that we, like, I'm more than willing to operate within your framework of what, like set, set me up and capistan set up, set up the rules like in, in a, in theory. And I'll be more than happy to work within that. And then, you know, once we start applying problems that we see in non-an capistan today, America, and it's not that far of a stretch to apply them to the exact end capistan that you created with all the rules. Right. And to see that it doesn't fare that much better, it would fare better. Like I'll, I'll give end caps at it would, it would be better. But that's, that's not a very high bar. Yeah. I mean, if it's just, and another thing is, you know, well, no one, no one who's an anarchist uses a term utopia. But that's how it's sold without actually using the term. And it's very much easier. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that too. I don't, I don't see them trying to sell me utopia. I see them trying to sell me somewhat improvement. But there's a lot of, there's a lot of other ideologies that sell me somewhat improved version of today that I can also find myself gravitating towards like Marxist-Leninism, for instance. I mean, culture is everything. And if the, if the culture in anarchist and isn't mono, private property, property rights are not going to save you. Yeah. Kind of, we, we have, like you said, the line has to go up here as well. In every major important sector of the economy, the line has to go up. And then you have the fake ESG economy that doesn't have the line and the, the feelings line has to go up. But I don't think any of your audience or or anybody that I care about participates in that fake sector. So like sell me something better. Yeah. It seems clear then that the regime of open borders that exist de facto in the US really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. Under total privatization, many local conflicts and externality problems, not merely the immigration problem would be neatly settled. What would you do if you want big? Hi, this is Chelsea from Dallas. I just hit the jackpot. 1 over 1,500 K. Sign up in seconds. Intercode Crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus. Crowncoins.com. That's C-R-O-W-N coins.com. No purchase needed. Code ballot for new users on the void were prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions applied. Crowncoins to C-N-O. I mean, that's an assumption. Yeah, like the all you have to do is post negative externalities on anything that anybody supports and you won the argument. What about negative externalities? Well, what about positive externalities? I hate that word so much. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations or contractual communities, true diversity would reign in accordance with the preferences of each community. So then you might find that they're not anarcho-capitalists. Yeah. And there's also this whole idea that absent the state corporations won't have the power that they have now. It's very likely that they can have more power than they have now. Yeah, or exactly the same. Like a community by consent in my area. If the federal government fell and the state government was weakened beyond repair, I know that the area, my area, would do its level best to maintain the status quo. And that would be a nation by consent, my county. Like they're not going to, there's no conflict between my county and the surrounding power structures. So, I mean, is that a nation by consent? If it's the status quo. And what is this true diversity that would reign in accordance with the preferences of each community? I mean, what does that look like? I mean, it's assuming that the community next door wouldn't be affected by that community turning to total shit. Yeah. Yeah. Some neighbors, those externalities will be solved. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogenous. Some local, the diverse communities would have real problems with the homogenous communities, especially if those are done by consent and they are designed and they are intentional, what unquote, communities. Yes, because Marxism exists. And also, it's what Marxists understood is, as long as you have people who, in their minds, people who live through what the old system was, they're always going to want and desire the old system, which is why, which is when people start getting killed in mass numbers. Yeah. Because you have to get rid of the old thinking and people don't want to change their minds, people don't want to change. True story. Yeah. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortion. Others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state-imposed, but would simply be requirements for residents or use of some persons or communities land area. While status who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, is that what a status is? I was going to wait till the next sentence to get my two sets. Yeah. I'll finish it then. I'll restart. While status who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. Again, it's better than what we have right now, but it's not really that different. Ever since the row ruling, the Scotus ruled on row and got pretty much gutted out row, you still have people from Texas flying out to a blue state to get abortions. If you can't enforce your culture, then what is the appeal to any of this? Like that's I don't know. Go ahead. I'm flabbergasted. While neighborhood ownership would not provide utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a second best solution that most people might be willing to live with. And again, it's something we're all willing to live with this. Ethically, culturally, homogenous communities, it's the proximity thing that becomes the problem. If you're not at least a hundred miles away from a competing culture with adversarial political interests or just that they're dicks, you're going to have conflict. Yep. All right, enclaves and ex-claves. One over one thousand five hundred k. Sign up in seconds, intercode crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus. Crowncoins.com That's c-r-o-w-n coins.com. No purchase needed. 18 plus terms and addition supply. One obvious problem with the secession of nationalities from centralized states concerns mixed areas or enclaves or ex-claves. Decomposing the swollen central nation state of Yugoslavia into constituent parts has solved many conflicts by providing independent nationhood for Slovenes, Serbs and Croats. But what about Bosnia? Where many towns and villages are mixed. One solution is to encourage more of the same, though still more decentralization. If, for example, eastern Sarajevo is Serb and western Sarajevo is Muslim, then they become parts of their respective separate nations. But this of course, go ahead, say it. I know. If you're going to remove people from one end of town to the next, why not just remove them? If that's the solution to encourage people to move to areas of their respective culture, why not move all the way? Yeah, give yourself some breathing room. But this, of course, will result in a large number of enclaves, parts of nations surrounded by other nations. How can this be solved? In the first place, the enclave X-lay problem exists right now. There it is right there. It's always there. We have that problem now. How do we solve it, Mari? One of the most vicious existing conflicts in which the U.S. has not yet meddled because it has not yet been shown on CNN is the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian enclave totally surrounded by and therefore formally within Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh should clearly be part of Armenia, but how then will Armenians of Karabakh avoid their present fate of blockade by azeris and how will they avoid military battles in trying to keep open a land corridor to Armenia? Under total privatization, of course, these problems would disappear. They would not. Yeah, ancient ethnic hostility would simply disappear because lawn go up. I mean, he talks about people having different ethnos and everything in the beginning of this, yet he gets to hear and he says the problem would disappear. Nowadays, no one in the U.S. buys land without making sure that his title to the land is clear. In the same way, in a fully privatized world, access rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership. In such a world, then Karabakh property owners would make sure that they had purchased access rights through an azeri land corridor. That's from azeris that hate them. There are a lot of shared easements in Alabama, so you buy a house and the driveway to the house goes through someone else's property. But it's known when you purchase it, You know that the person who owns the property knows that to they're not going to shut you shut you down. And if they did, if they did try to shut you out, you have, you have some place to go to, um, you know, to litigate that. Yeah. And then Capastans, what, what are they, oh, well, you were going to a private court. No, I'm not going to a private court. I refused to go to a private court. What are you going to do now? We're going to create a government to come in there, a monopoly on force and violence to physically take me to court so that this can be hashed out. And then you're going to rule against me. Yeah. Well, or, or let's, let's give them the benefit of the doubt again. They go to court. Oh, it's an azeri judge. What do you think he's going to do? Oh, there's your private arbitration. It's culture. All right, OK, decentralization also provides a workable solution for the seemingly insoluble permanent conflict in Northern Ireland. When the British partitioned Ireland in the early 1920s, they agreed to perform a second a more micromanaged partition. They never carry through on this promise. If the British would permit a detailed parish by parish, partisan vote in Northern Ireland, however, most of the land area, which is majority Catholic, would probably hive off and join the Republic, such counties as Tyrone and Fermanau, Southern down and Southern Armour, for example, the Protestants would probably be left with Belfast, County Entrem, and other areas north of Belfast. The major remaining problem would be the Catholic enclave within the city of Belfast. But again, an approach to the anarcho-capitalist model could be attained by permitting the purchase of access rights to the enclave. I mean, Protestants and Catholics and, yeah, there's no history there at all. Yeah, just by land, everybody likes money. Pending total privatization, it is clear that our model could be approached and conflicts minimized by permitting secession and local control down to micro-neighborhood level and by developing contractual access rights for enclaves and exclaves. Okay, so what happens when like a bunch of those little micro-neighborhoods decide that they need to confederate because they're, let's say, they're Protestant, and all the rest, they're surrounded by a whole bunch of enclaves that are staunch atheists and humanists. Yeah, man, the goal of the atheist-humanist exclaves would be to subjugate or at least minimize the influence and it would be to hurt the Protestants and the Catholics as much as they could because, I mean, when you're looking at any universal ideology, which humanism is an ideology, like it seeks to universalize, yeah, you're going to run into conflict. Conflict that can't be bought your way out of. One of the things that I've thought about even secession here, like say like, you know, get four or five states that were contiguous and they seceded and a bunch of Southern states and then you have a bunch of states. So in the Southern states, you have free gun ownership, you can go and buy a select fire at McDonald's or wherever and those leftist states who border it are going to look at that and they're going to, even if they're not worried that they'll make it, those will make it into their land and hurt them, they have a religious belief about gun ownership. Now what if those leftist states decide that they are going to have abortion on demand up to nine months in one day? I think sooner or later, conflict is going to occur. Yeah, yeah, religious conflict. There's people do not think about these things and they do not understand that the reason why many governments in the past have gotten totalitarian is because, and against neighbors is because of, they don't share values, you know, they don't, they look upon them as scum, they look upon them as lesser, they look upon them as, and they believe that eventually they are going to be a problem and in many cases, in many cases, they were not wrong. Yeah, now this is why anybody that talks about national divorce or succession and doesn't talk about solving the Langley problem, I don't take seriously, it's, it can't, if it is peaceful, it's because you exist at the behest of the Pentagon, and in which case, your best hope is to be a client state, a client state with guns that you can buy at McDonald's. And if it's hard to talk about because it comes off close to fed posting, but any serious attempt at succession or national divorce has to mitigate the Langley problem, because they are universalists, you will not exist outside of there, you, you are an economic zone and you will not exist outside of that economic zone. Pending total privatization is just clear that our model could be approached and conflicts minimized by permitting secession and local control, okay, I already read that. And the U.S. it becomes important in moving towards such radical decentralization for libertarians and classical liberals, indeed for many other minority or dissident groups, to begin to lay the greatest stress on the forgotten 10th Amendment and to try to decompose the role and power of the centralizing Supreme Court, until you think you get the Supreme Court on your side and then you don't worry about them much more anymore. Yeah, rather than trying to get peoples of one one's own ideological persuasion on the Supreme Court, its power should be rolled back and minimized as far as possible and it's powered decomposed into state or even local judicial bodies. Yeah, that sounds great. That sounds great. Yeah, that sounds awesome. We'll do that tomorrow. >> We need to get a citizenship in voting rights. >> We need never sounded so good. >> Hi, this is Michael from Georgia, I 140K and finally renovated my home. >> Visit crowncoins.com, sign up in seconds, enter code crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus. Crowncoins.com, that's C-R-O-W-N coins.com, no purchase needed. 18 plus terms and positions applied. >> Crowncoins Casino! >> One vaccine current problem centers on who becomes the citizen of a given country since citizenship confers voting rights. The Anglo-American model in which every baby born in the country's land area automatically becomes a citizen clearly invites welfare immigration by the expectant parents. In the U.S., for example, a current problem is illegal immigrants whose babies, if born on American soil, automatically become citizens and therefore entitle themselves and their parents to permanent welfare payments and free medical care. >> Clearly the phrase. >> What? >> Anchor babies. >> Yeah. >> Not a lot say that. >> Clearly the French system in which one has to be born to a citizen or become an automatic citizen is far closer to the idea of a nation by consent. Does that even exist anymore, in France? >> If it doesn't mean anything because they'll give visas to hundreds of thousands of people. >> Yeah, people. It is also important to rethink the entire concept and function of voting. Should anyone have a right to vote? Rose Wilder lay in the mid-20th century U.S. libertarian theorist once asked if she believed in women's suffrage, no she replied, and I'm against male suffrage as well, just against women's suffrage, and probably landowners and IQ tests would be good. >> The Latvians and Estonians have cogently tackled the problem of Russian immigrants by allowing them to continue permanently as residents, but not granting them citizenship or the right to vote. Swiss Welcome Temporary Guest Workers but severely discussed. courage, permanent immigration, and AFA-14, AFA-4TRE citizenship, and voting. I think the Swiss are still pretty good on that, aren't they? I don't think so. I want to say I've seen an article about the Swiss expanding their taking in refugees or something, or work visas or whatever. I know Italy just kind of flipped the script on their super-based national fascist leader welcoming in like 450,000 refugees or something. Back in 2000, Switzerland said that they were going to give a million dollars to any survivor of the Holocaust and they had a million applicants. And at the reparations, let us turn for enlightenment once again to the anarcho-capitalist model. Let's not. Why would voting be like in a totally privatized society? Not only would voting be diverse, but more importantly, who would really care? Like are you a shareholder? Are you a board member? Probably the most deeply satisfying form of voting to an economist is the corporation or joint stock company in which voting is proportionate to the one share of ownership of the firm's assets, which is why line has to go up no matter what. Yes, but amazing what you'll vote for. But also there are and would be a myriad of private clubs of all sorts. It is usually assumed that club decisions are made on the basis of one vote per member, but that is generally untrue. Undoubtedly, the best run in most pleasant clubs are those run by a small self-perpetuating oligarchy of the ableist and most interested, a system most pleasant for the rank and file non-voting member as well as for the elite. So feudalism. Yeah. I mean, again, it's that sounds great. It's better than what we have. Yeah. But how do you get there? What's the what's the praxis? Yeah. And how does it insulate itself from becoming exactly what we have right now, but with yellow and black flag instead of a red, white and blue one? If I'm a rank and file member of say a chess club, oh, where am I supposed to say? Undoubtedly, the best run in most pleasant clubs are those, okay, oligarchy, blah, blah, blah. If I am a rank and file member of say a chess club, why should I worry about voting if I am satisfied with the way the club is run? And if politics is continual, if you are not gatekeeping, if you are not paying attention, if you are not actively seeking your best interests, your best interests will be subverted. Every time, every single time. And if you are in a position of power where you can introduce things to vote, who put you in that position and why, and be why wouldn't you want to cement your legacy for nefarious purposes or to or to improve things, whatever your version of improvement is, why wouldn't you want to wield that power? Whether it's a corporate structure or a democratic one, the incentives are still there to wield power. I'm not of the opinion, normally, that people are very naive. I think that there are a lot of people who are all about liberty and freedom, whatever these things mean. They mean different things to different people who believe that deep down, that's what everyone wants. And yeah, I mean, what did what did another Aaron on Twitter say the other day? He said, as far as I'm concerned, all the red pills expired in 2020. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, makes sense. People want to be led, people want to be safe, people, that's all they want. So I mean, expecting people to, you know, if you could get to this kind of society, which how are you going to do it in the first place? I mean, you're, I hear some people say, oh, we're just waiting for the state to, you know, the state collapses and then, you know, what everybody's going to adopt this form of, of society? I mean, how do you, it's um, and again, I, I love my right wing libertarian bodies, but, uh, they, they, they have a lot of time to think and to, and to watch. And, um, I think they, they're not, they're not beyond redemption. I just, I hope that the majority of them are kind of beyond Rothbard now, which, um, that's kind of what I'm seeing. I don't see a whole lot of Rothbard posting, except for the real diards. Yeah. If I see Hoppa posting, I'm, that, I know that I can, I can talk to them. Yeah. Yeah. And if I'm interested in running things, I would probably be asked to join the ruling elite by the grateful oligarchy, always on the lookout for energetic members. Is that what they are? Is, is that what they want? They want competition? I, I mean, they want competent, competent people that they control. Sure. Like, I mean, when I, when I think of the oligarchy, I think of, uh, you know, the leading players in all, in all the sectors of industry. And, um, you know, the, the cream rises to, to quote Macho Man Randy Savage, the cream rises to the top. But, um, if you're not going to rise to, to the level of oligarchy. And finally, if I am unhappy about the way the club is run, I can readily quit and join another club or even form one of my own. Just start your own, no consequences whatsoever. Yep. Just start your own internet, bro. Just, just quit, bro. Get a new job. That, of course, is one of the great virtues of a free and privatized society, whether we are considering a chess club or a contractual neighborhood community. Clearly, as we begin to work toward the pure model, as more and more areas and parts of life become either privatized or micro decentralized, the less important voting will become. Well, voting's become less important for one reason and one reason alone is because we basically have one group with all the power and they've decided how voting works. Yeah, they count the votes. Yeah. Of course, we are a long wait for our, from our goal, from this goal. But it is important to begin, and particularly to change our political culture, which treats democracy or the right to vote as a supreme political good. One over 1,500 K. Sign up in seconds, enter code Crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus. CrownCoins.com. No, purchase needed. We're prohibited by law. I wish you could see what what's happened. Yeah, you see so close. In fact, the voting process should be considered trivial and unimportant at best and never a right, apart from a possible mechanism stemming from a consensual contract. In the modern world, democracy or voting is only important either to join in or ratify, is that ratify? The use of the government to control others or to use it as a way of preventing one's self or one's group from being controlled. Boating, however, is at best an inefficient instrument for self-defense and it is far better to replace it by breaking up central government power altogether. Getting on that tomorrow. I'm getting on that tomorrow. I'm going to get everyone to read and add to me at the state and they're going to want. In sum, if we proceed with a decomposition and decentralization of the modern centralizing coercive nation state. Deconstructing that state into constituent nationalities and neighborhoods, we shall at one in the same time reduce the scope of government power, the scope and importance of voting, and the extent of social conflict. The scope of private contract and a voluntary consent will be enhanced, and the brutal and repressive state will be gradually dissolved into a harmonious and increasingly prosperous social order. It just wethers away. So what are your thoughts on that one? It's a blast from the past. I haven't read Rothbard in a while, and, well, that's why. He gets it so close, and then there's a deep dive into things that are either just really far-fetched, really hard to see happening in a different paradigm, and not just regress into what we have right now, or they're just not particularly compelling in contrast to, say, an ethno state or national socialism, or even, like, Marxist-Leninism. For people like us, I think we would do pretty well in any paradigm that we find ourselves in. An arco-capitalist is a good idea. It's just how. The whole, one of the things that was hardest for me to let go of was if we can wake people up kind of thing. I'll read this, and when you read this and when you understand it, hopefully people start to understand illi-theria a little better. This is in my relate. Van-Gardism. Yeah, Van-Gardism. In my relations with my fellow workmen, I was often astonished to find how easily and how often they changed their opinion on the same question, sometimes within a few days, and sometimes with even in the course of a few hours. I found it difficult to understand how men who always had reasonable ideas when I spoke to them as individuals suddenly lost this reasonableness. The moment they came under the influence of the mass of the mass, I was often on the verge of despair. When after talking to them for hours, I was convinced that I had at last broken the ice and made them see the error of their way of thinking and was pleased. I would often find to my disgust that the next day I had to begin all over again. All my efforts had been in vain. With pendulum-like regularity, they swung back to their original opinions. Buddy, that's my wife. That's like arguing with your wife. You think that you fix the problem and then they bring it up the next day. Anyone who has tried to talk politics to a co-worker understands exactly what that Austrian painter was saying there. It's almost like you innately gravitate towards ideologies, maybe not all the way towards, but towards right or left or however you want to put it. There's no rhyme or reason to why. Maybe it's nature, nurture, I don't know, but if you're talking to somebody who doesn't innately gravitate towards what you're talking about, then why bother? Your best bet is to just make sure that they don't care, to contain them, to not give them consciousness. I read something like what Rothbard wrote here and he keeps invoking anarcho-capitalism. I chuckle at it and I laugh and I remember, mostly because I remember those days when I would make those same arguments as well and I would talk about what would be the ideal. One thing that Thomas Sol has said that I think really a lot of people who claim to like Thomas Sol probably ignore is the fact that Thomas Sol says there are no solutions, only trade-offs. It's a constantly evolving process, the revolution is permanent. That's life. That's life, no matter if I'm reading an anarcho-capitalist, if I'm reading a Marxist-Leninist, if I'm reading a national socialist, and they're talking about the ideal, I'm looking around and I'm going, well, it's just I may like something or all of each and every one of those, it's not going to happen. What do we do? That's really the only question that matters. The other thing about, I mean Rothbard especially, but just anarcho-capitalism is it doesn't build a compelling dialectic that people like myself can relate to. Like how do I give me something that I can work with? How do I bring up, bring about anarcho-capitalism on my street, in my work? In what areas do I have the power to? For myself, I already know the answer to those, and I go about it the best way I can. Keeping the HR department out of my small company, because I, for some reason, have some influence in it. That's like my contribution, my little contribution. As far as not voting goes, he has voting understood all wrong. It's not about the effect of you showing up to the voting booth and seeing your neighbors and holding a sign and signaling to that you are, you know, you are read in a deep blue area or you are read in a deep red area and it's going to stay red. That's the little contribution voting helps with not actual political power, just propaganda. Well, anyone who properly understands the dialectic is going to have to know and understand and is going to want to know who their enemy is. Because you're going to have an enemy. That's true. You're going to have an enemy, and how are you going to deal with that enemy? The enemy is status. All right. So the enemy is 99.9% of everyone. How are you going to deal with them? I really appreciate this. We've been going an hour and a half. Why don't you tell people where they can find you and we'll get out of here. Yeah, you can find me on Twitter @BTWA_returns and you can find me on Timeline Earth, a podcast about geometry. Geometry. Geometric shapes. I will say this if you do decide you want to DM Aaron on Twitter. You have to know the password. You got to say the magic word. It starts with an end and ends with an R. Do not end it with an A. Yep. Thank you Aaron. Appreciate it. Do not. Thanks man. 1 over 1,500K. You may win up to 10,000 sweepscoins. CrownCoins.com. No purchase needed. 18+ terms and conditions apply.