Comments by "" (@12q8) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
When I took the class on international politics in college, the professor said that before WW1, the world was mostly realists. They believed that for peace to prosper, no nation should have the edge in weaponry, which is a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to armimant. That was the philosophy of most world leaders back then.
After WW1, the world liberals took over mostly in Western powers with their world view, and argued that WW1 happened because there was no platform for the world to discuss and talk with each other, which started the League of Nations.
However, not all European powers joined or were invited. Germany even left 9 months of Hitler taking power. USSR was expelled on December 14, 1939.
"In October 1933, some nine months after Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany, the German government announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations. The ostensible reason was the refusal of the Western powers to acquiesce in Germany’s demands for military parity."
He also said that after WW2, there was a neorealist and neoliberalist approach mostly, and since the 1990, it has been neoliberal as the dominant factor.
2
-
@walterbailey2950 Yeah, if we're speaking historically, I agree.
Right and left changed throughout.
Originally it meant where they were positioned in the national assembly in France, where royalists were on the right side and anti-royalists on the left. However, trying to use this outdated continuum causes confusions like libertarians being "pro-conservatism", and that authoritarianism can be in "both ends" and working from that theory to place socialist competing ideologies in different parts of the spectrum when they ultimately would agree in their end goals, organizing social and economic affairs.
Socialism, co-opting the "left" off its historical meaning, when it stands for collectivism, state planning, community control of the individual, is something libertarians would stand against.
This is why I think left (total government) and right (no government) is more relevant and consistent.
1
-
1
-
> If there is a market for a state, can we really deny the market?
> As soon as one person wants a state, that need is met by an entrepreneur.
In that case, it would still be a voluntary association. If it tried to enforce anything, it would be hard since everyone would be against it.
States, if we can call them that, would be voluntary subscription-based, where you pay a company for a package of services they can provide instead of being forced to.
Since we don’t live in a world where we all share the same values and as rational, humans are fallible, it would be hard to maintain a world wide ancapistan.
Banditry will exist, for example, and that would open a market for security.
Currently, that market is a monopoly by the United States. It is part of a historical deal. Would be a good topic for a video.
Somali pirates have stock markets for their activities.
One way to look how it would play out, outside of idealistic ancap views, think of moral nihilism, anarchist egoism (Max Stirner), and free markets. There would be a market for everything. Literally everything.
It opens the door for a lot of ideas for novels.
Think of a society where gladiators still exist in the modern world, and people bet on who is going to win or get killed, in some city known for hosting those events, similar to how people see Las Vegas as the place for casinos.
While on the other side of the world, people would see this as something against their moral values, and such businesses would not exist.
As long as it is voluntary, there is no problem with it. Some would have careers as gladiators, fans globally, and people following them like sports nowadays.
Capitalism has a narrower definition than free-market, despite ancaps using it to mean that.
Capitalism refers more to the process of going to capital markets to collect capital, typically as loans, to start a business. Or at least that is how I understand it.
Businesses could start in any shape or form in a free-market.
1
-
1
-
A family that would split a once shared farmland would be obvious. More private units exist now.
However, a growing family that maintains a shared farmland after it was once owned by a smaller family with one distinct owner, would really be where it gets to the cut-off on how the farm is being run now.
It would still remain private if the father's will is for the eldest son to own the farm, or it would have a hierarchy or shared ownership, similar to how a corporation is run, where discussion, voting, or whatever method they use to reach a decision on running the farm, would be implemented. This would be a clear cut-off based on the situation and new mechanism used to run the property, for example.
Do you have any opinions on this? Or does it not matter much to have an opinion on?
I think perhaps the mechanism is where the cutoff is, but I don't think I've thought enough about it.
1
-
19:10
Israel is a nation-state. I don't think nation here meant nation-state. A nation is something else in politics, generally defined as a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
Israel, as a nation-state, carries the ethos of nationalism, which is to manufacture a nation out of ethnicities that share nothing but a religion and belief in ancient mythology, a process called "nation building."
For example, modern Hebrew is made up from thousands of borrowed words from neighboring Semitic languages, because only a few hundred words survived from ancient Hebrew to form a language.
Zionism existed before the birth of Nazism by decades.
There is a whole rabbit hole of parallel development between nationalism, socialism, and Zionism, which is just manufacturing a Jewish nation out of a religion. It makes sense since back then, nationalism, colonialism, racism, etc. were all the rage. It would be rather shocking if Jewish people in Europe did not develop their own version or reaction.
As secularism was on the rise, some Jewish people thought they could assimilate, but natives resisted that. Leading some to believe that Jewish people would not be respected unless they form a nation and a state for that nation. Basically what Herzl and many early Zionists believed.
It's a whole rabbit hole. If you ever decide to dig deep into it, you'd be surprised and maybe not surprised by many things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem of mono-ethinic states as implemented back then, or as they were called, nation-states, is that for many regions of the world, it would be impossible to draw borders such that nations have their own nation-states.
For example, the Balkans have cities that are multi-ethnic, and drawing borders between the ethnic groups living in those cities such that you'd have a single, continious line that goes around is impossible.
With its implementation, what ended up happening is ethnic minorities existing within the borders of newly created states, and those are easily targeted.
The way self-determination was implemented back then was also mainly focused on trying to mitigate the chance of another war in Europe, which is why it was not implemented in the colonies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1