All right, guys, for those on just joining us, that is going to be an interesting conversation.
Join with Anhern, right?
Anhern.
Anyways, we're going to be talking about the Bible and anarchy.
It's inspired on a post made by Lesserin.
I invited her and the Beeb on the podcast as well, waiting to schedule that.
But in this case, Anhern's going to share his point of view of why he thinks the Bible is one of the most anarchist texts out there.
And he's an Orthodox Christian.
So I would also like to get into the comparison between different, I guess, branches of Christianity.
So it's going to be an interesting conversation.
I'm on, let's say, my own path of spirituality.
Something I have postponed for some time, but I'm getting more and more interested in it.
So without ado.
Okay, so I'll be reading the text while I was listening.
I'll be reading the text.
Oh, because Anand is going to be using text-to-speech.
Oh, no.
We were originally going to use text-to-speech, but we had problems with the audios.
I'm going to be asking questions and he's going to be typing out his responses and I'll be reading them out.
So Anhearn is saying, hello world, Anastar.
I go by Anhearn, but that's of course not my real name.
And yeah, he wants to keep his real identity separate.
So let's begin.
If you guys have any questions, feel free to ask in the chat.
Okay, without ado, Unurn, can you give us a brief summary about your religious journey and how you got to Orthodox Christianity?
Of course.
I just grew up in Britain, where religion was seen as something for weirdos and old people.
In my community, Christianity was viewed as superstition.
You know, it wasn't something that most people care about or thought or thought about.
nobody I knew was religious
I didn't arrive at atheism through careful thought
it was just the default
okay so default atheism
myself as well
I mean I grew up as a Roman Catholic
and by the time
I was in high school
I considered myself an atheist
so I guess yeah similar thing
it seems to be something that's happening around
the western world by default
I agree there
and then how did you start slowly
transitioning towards religion and specifically Orthodox Christianity.
Ooh, well, this is going to sound crazy, but the internet converted me.
How so?
I was the obnoxious redder making fun of sky daddy believers.
Then someone called me out quite harshly for mocking things I knew nothing about.
Yeah, humans tend to do that, right?
The Dunning-Kruger effect, I guess.
So I started actually, I know, yeah.
So I started actually listening to religious arguments initially to laugh at them.
But then something happened.
The arguments started making sense.
The cosmological argument clicked for me.
First, I thought it was a brain dead simple.
It was brain dead simple.
But I couldn't break it into, I couldn't break it no matter how much I tried to.
Which, any arguments in particular, like something that was like, yeah, this argument is the one that made me go, okay, maybe there is a God.
Or there totally is a God.
oh here's and also he responds then the moral argument got to me too uh we're just me computers
why does enter i kept saying suffering is bad but according to whom my neurons evolution couldn't
couldn't have programmed me differently it felt circular and and empty yeah i agree and also i i've
said it many times i don't think there's a thing as a true atheist like if you take out god from
the equation, you just find something else to be your God, whether it's science, right? The state
or things of the like, and then A is literally code. Where does information come from? And
consciousness, that mess, message, I guess, materialism couldn't explain it. Saying it's
just neurons is like answering what is software with electricity and circuits, you know, so it
basically makes no sense. And even to this day, there's a lot of things that science cannot
explain that also brings up another question or argument right like because something doesn't have
an explanation doesn't mean you have the default to it was god you know what i mean so that's
something that uh i see a lot in the i guess you say atheist that was definitely one of my thoughts
back then this is right of course and uh that's why it takes years to actually convert
yeah it's a definitely a rabbit hole so basically from what i understood the internet helped convert
you because you started asking questions you weren't just satisfied with uh hearing the default
arguments uh but but then why orthodox christianity and not roman catholic or um protestantism uh
protestantism gave us sola scriptura table alone look what happened 30 000 denominations all
claiming scripture all contradicting each other without tradition the church fathers everyone
becomes their own pope. The Bible didn't fall from heaven as a book. The church compiled it.
You can't have scripture without tradition. You're going to have to educate me on this because I have
not looked deeply into the profound differences between the different branches. So for example,
in Catholicism, because that's the most, I guess that's the biggest branch, definitely in Mexico.
How does that differ from Orthodox Christianity? Oh, interesting response.
neutralization okay so yeah i i can you explain that exactly because so i know for uh in and uh
former roman catholics there's a pope right who's in the vatican so i guess like you could say that's
the the leader let's see about orthodox christianity if responses orthodox christians
don't just follow a single leader like the pope follow the wisdom of those who are there before us
those who learned from Christ and those who learned from them, the church fathers.
Interesting.
Wouldn't that give also way to other branches?
Because eventually down the line, everyone has their own interpretation over time.
Whether we go for good intentions, bad intentions, just random chance.
Isn't that something that happens?
Orthodox keeps the same tradition that has been followed for thousands of years.
Okay, so there's like a base code, you could say.
you know, like, I guess like Bitcoin, it's the one branch of Christianity that hasn't changed.
Yes, I guess. Interesting. So it's a, as a decentralized, could you explain that a bit
further? Like what traditions, is there anything else that also separates it from Roman Catholicism?
So decentralization and tradition of the big ones, in my opinion, like, again, traditions,
what exactly because i i i got the decentralization arts different the thought leaders
are all based on those follow jesus okay so it says divine lethargy lethargy is practiced
the exact same way it was 2 000 years ago okay so it's all i guess you could say it's a more
conservative in in nature that we're saying basically because yeah again i'm not very uh
religious on the journeys,
but I do know the Pope can perhaps
recommend, maybe not dictate
the law, but give his recommendations or
point of view on what to do in certain
situations, and perhaps
see the way
the church should think about things,
I believe. And I think I saw
it with the previous Popes. Yeah, they've been
doing some of those things.
So, I have no idea how to pronounce that.
Okay, so he responds that,
indeed, we have multiple autocephalus,
So cephalus, essentially patriarchy.
Okay.
I used to think that the Orthodox Church also has like its own Pope.
You know, he would even meet with the Catholic Pope.
You don't.
Okay.
That's weird.
I have no idea why I have that in my mind.
Interesting.
Okay.
So, oh, that's interesting.
Christians are made through councils and consensus.
There isn't one central authority.
Every parish is slightly different.
Actually sounds interesting.
I'm gonna have to look more into this. Okay, that's really that's really interesting. I also want to share again
This was all inspired off of a post made by Lesserin. I'm gonna talk about
I want to start
With that I I did invite her and the beeve who were the main people talking in this in this thread
Hopefully they'll be they'll come on the podcast and uh, okay, so here's what lesser and
originally posted on Noster.
Anarchists know
that they can destroy civilization
and set the world on fire
and then create order
out of chaos, just like God
did. And then that evolved into a
more deeper conversation. We'll get into that later.
I guess the first question out of there...
Oh, wait. Okay, first I'll read out your response.
Okay, you agree with her, but...
Because we're going to get...
I think one of the first good questions would be
because you made a comment. You believe
that the Bible is one of the most anarchist books out there. So I want to get into that first before
getting deeper into this post. Okay, so again, Einherr's response was, I agree with her, but you
know, the devil is in the details. All right. So Einherr also responds that I believe the Bible is
the most anarchist and pro-decentralization book ever written. We Orthodox believe in the wisdom
of the church fathers, but primarily in decentralization, the wisdom within. The only
true leader is the Lord. We reject earthly leaders, but we're also told to act as Jesus would.
Okay. So basically, I can think a good follow-up question here is, what is anarchy exactly? Because
a lot of people are going to think it's basically chaos. For those listening, I guess, yeah,
I might be biased, but I guess you could say I identify as an anarcho-capitalist,
free marketeer or libertarian You can I guess any of those definitions kind of do I guess Anarchy is not chaos It choosing to live freely Anarchism isn against all hierarchy It against hierarchy that gives itself moral authority The Lord is the only one who can pass divine judgment on me not a government
And hierarchy isn't bad.
First tyrannical hierarchy, that's impossible to escape from.
That's what's bad.
Yeah, so I think here's another thing that was going on in the thread.
It seems that people have also have difficulty defining what the state is.
Like, what is the state?
What is government?
Okay, so the state is a tyrannical, unelected group of people who think they can rule over us and control everything we can and cannot do.
Yeah, I agree.
It's a monopoly on violence, in my opinion.
So 1 Samuel 8.
Israel demanded a king, and God warned them about the incoming tyranny.
This is God explicitly warning against earthly kings and governments.
God wants Ancapistan.
It's right there in the scripture.
I did come across this.
I've been reading parts of the Bible over the years.
And reading about that, I was like, oh, my God.
If I'm not mistaken, that's when the Jews left Egypt.
And they've been wandering for years in the desert.
Or eventually, they eventually reached the Holy Land.
And they asked, I have to do so much more reading.
It was Moses, you know, who left him out.
Was he the one?
And then they were asking him for a king.
And wasn't he also saying, oh, guys, you know, this could devolve into madness or what most people would call anarchy or I would say tyranny, right?
But yes.
Yeah, this was after Moses, but correct.
Okay, after Moses.
Yes, yes.
I was like, God, this is super anarchy.
It's in the Old Testament.
So that was an interesting observation to me.
Okay, how can I follow this up?
I think another big comment here is the strong will always overtake the weak.
Because let's be honest, there's very few people who are anarchists,
or follow this way of thinking and are willing to actually implement it,
like agorists, or how you pronounce it.
Therefore, it's a small group.
And you have a bunch of these peaceful people who are willing to use violence,
it's not necessary, but peaceful.
They can be overtaken
by a larger group.
So if you can get your Encapistan,
your little region of
anarchic people cooperating,
it would probably be a short-lived,
you can say it that way, because
the neighboring states
will see it easy
and ripe for the taking, you know what I mean?
That's one argument as to
why anarchy is perhaps, you know,
people will call a utopia or
an illusion
or doctrine sure okay so i guess the question there would be even if it's uh mentioned in a
way in the bible as to like oppose where it's like okay maybe you don't want a king because
here are the problems can anarchy and kapistan i guess that's the question okay so most wars are
caused by states armed communities are hard to invade violence and militia and armed population
is a deterrent but also in orthodox and kapistan why would we be worth invading we're not hoarding
resources or threatening neighbors yeah i think the decentralization definitely makes it harder to
like cut off the head because there's no head i guess a lot of little heads if you include
communities i do that would definitely make it harder true and honest okay so one interesting
common first i'll read your response and then i'll continue polycentric law works evil iceland
had it for centuries but arbitration works today you don't need a monopoly on law enforcement
competing private security firms and arbitration companies would create better justice than our
current system and orthodox communities in encapistan would defer to church teaching for
most things yeah i think another good comment here is uh correct me if i'm wrong i believe common law
was actually, obviously comes from England, UK.
And it was private to begin with.
The state did not create common law.
Took over, but it was created in a decentralized fashion,
a way to negotiate disputes.
So that's interesting.
People working in their own best interests
without coercion, it had common law.
But the state, in this case, England or Great Britain,
I know there's a different way.
England is one part.
There's England, Scotland, and I guess Northern Ireland.
Great Britain.
There's a differentiation there.
So forgive me if I've used the wrong term.
But basically, common law is attributed mostly to Great Britain.
When the state, when it was actually individuals working and cooperating.
One comment I want to do also is, I think Ancapistan.
is actually possible, more possible now than in the past.
And that's things to technology,
things like Bitcoin and now Nostra communication.
Back then, perhaps creating the state was a more viable solution,
at least in the mainland.
The continent, like Iceland, is isolated
and they can do their own things without being really bothered.
I think now with technology,
it becomes much more feasible to do so and i don't know if you've heard of i forgot i can't
pronounce his name but the guy who wrote a book it's called the network state that's an interesting
thesis as well basically creating your community or anarchic communities online um or a nation you
want to call it that online and then maybe putting capital enough to eventually get land or who knows
or maybe some type of community in the sea.
You know what I mean?
So I think nowadays it's more possible than ever
and not the other way around.
So it says Bitcoin, Anhern responds,
Bitcoin, Noster, Orthodoxy, and Cap Philosophy.
They all converge on the same principles.
Centralization, voluntary interaction,
rejection of coercive authority, truth over lies.
That's actually, that's a good combo, right?
You know, Bitcoin, it's money.
Noster, communication.
We need that, we're humans.
orthodoxy you need i mean not you need but humans i would say need to have a spiritual thing something
that fills that gap it's just natural in humans so orthodoxy fills i would say fantastically from
what i'm understanding obviously ancap philosophy which uh under capitalism you know basically
teaches you how to how humans can interact using the free market in a peaceful way to maximize
uh wealth for everyone i think that's actually a very good combo and anyways they're all
expressions of the same worldview in my opinion god is the only true authority and humans flourish
when free from tyranny okay so my original question i guess you could say it was strong
okay so the strong always overtake the weak how can the supposed weak or minority
stand the chance have you got give you have you given this any thought like how could we
kick off the encapistan how would this materialize in in the real world what would be the the the uh
about the the steps the chain of events okay so you start small you start with your community
create a parallel economy and parallel world where everyone is free then you're gonna scale
from there, right? Yes, and I believe
this is, I forgot all these
foreigners' names I can't pronounce, and
honestly, I forget the names.
What used to be Czechoslovakia,
there was a guy
who I believe termed,
who coined the term
parallel economy, right?
So even the Soviet Union
or in the satellite states,
there was
resistance movement to
what was perhaps one of the most
authoritarian
states out there in human history. So even in those conditions, economies were possible.
Nowadays, in the Western world, despite, okay, despite we are losing our liberties and our
freedoms, I still think it's a lot easier than they had it, you know, I mean, because of the
tools we just mentioned, you know, and indeed, the thing is that you can't fix the world, you can fix
yourself. And that helps get a small steps, you know, that's exactly what I was thinking, like,
people want solutions now. They want things now. They want things to be better now. Like,
I'm good. I want good things. What's the best way to do it? Through the state, right? Because they
have a lot of power, more power than individuals do in the short term. But in the long term,
who I think have like a good morals, stand by something, can create, exert change in the long
term. So you have to have a long time horizon. You have to have a low time preference. So yeah,
And Kappa Stan can't exist tomorrow.
I agree.
They have a point for those who argue against it.
But I do believe that's something that can be done on the long term.
So just like Anherne, I think the way to do this is you start small.
You start with yourself, obviously, your family.
Make a community.
Isn't that something we always say in Bitcoin?
Like friends of your local rancher, get secure meat there and start trading in the Bitcoin circular economy.
You're creating a community if you start doing that.
Perhaps we're more like-minded.
and uh okay so and her has responded yeah 100 small communities strong families voluntary
cooperation it's how humans live for most of history great great and kapistan you do you how
do you how do you okay so i guess most people imagine kapistan as some some region on earth
i guess the default by it having a border right i mean i guess the borders would be defined by the borders of the states around it if there are any but how do you exactly how would an encapistan look like to you the way i see it is it not necessarily a piece of land
in a certain part of earth he has multiple small communities and stuff all over the world
perhaps even living within the state within a state you know what i mean but uh how do you see
it well you mentioned the network state and balaji there you go balaji was right in my opinion the
internet allows us to have ancapistan without needing physical borders until you can buy land
right because we we've actually we've been seeing that now in the real world it's like projects
i don't know if people heard about for what are these they're uh free states no the free cities
so there's multiple projects like these i know there's one in honduras or basically a group of
entrepreneurs managed to negotiate something with the government and they started a city
basically with special, I guess you could say privileges to work the economy.
I think there's tax advantages and things that they have in this community.
So they're creating basically a parallel economy within a state.
So that's a very interesting.
And even within states, I know there's free economic zones within countries.
I know there's in Uruguay.
I know there's a lot of countries that have these free economic zones where like it's more
tax efficient there's more benefits for starting a business there so we're already seeing in the
real world it's it's actually things like these are already kind of being implemented what belagi
says in his book i don't see it as something that is too far-fetched you know um creating
the network state i wouldn't call it a state but uh online and then eventually cooling capital to
be able to purchase land somewhere and that being in a region um that is where people that
share the same values can live in oh you completely agree yeah so again i guess we're preaching to
the choir here right so but anyways i guess it's good we should like try to uh talk about
the counter arguments a bit more from from the other side so you already kind of
say what the state is the state is well my opinion it's basically a monopoly on violence
but is the state inevitable or is the state necessary that's something we should we should
also ask uh what do you think about that so on her response um good question no it's not necessary
nor inevitable how so the state only came about because we stopped focusing as much on community
well i guess it's also something that's part that's part of humanity you see it even now in
something that i'm i've been kind of looking into for example the bitcoin core business
people seem to want to look to leaders always and it makes sense you can't know everything and if
you want to learn something new for example you look to someone who's a leader in that space
perhaps someone who knows about what they're talking about experiencing it i guess humans
try to go through the path of less resistance.
And I think it's just, it's also in our state to have a leader,
natural state or state of mind.
In a group, you'll always, you will always kind of find it.
I mean, even in Orthodox, from Christianity, from my understood,
there are leaders.
Well, it's decentralized.
There are leaders nonetheless.
So that's why I say, I kind of do tend to agree.
It's the state is perhaps an inevitable in enough time.
So even within God's people, God's people decided they wanted
to have a state, a king and things
of the likes. I don't know. My opinion is that it is
kind of inevitable in
humanity. I think there's ways
around it.
Oh, yeah. So your response was yes, but
God rejected that belief.
Hierarchy isn't bad. Force, tyrannical
hierarchy. That's impossible to escape from.
That's what's bad. Yeah. Yeah, definitely.
Even if the
initial rulers are benign,
you have a good king, it's
kind of inevitable to it. Eventually
a bad apple will show up, right?
and it devolves into tyranny and yeah i agree that that's something that eventually happens
because one comment that lester and put there is like perhaps the focus should be on whether there
should be more or less government because the state will always be there because another and i
i wish she were here she were here to represent her own views i might be misrepresenting her
but uh if the weak eventually become strong let's say anarchists become strong enough and uh
they said the group leaders get together that can that eventually could turn into a state
with time you corrupts and uh absolute power corrupts absolutely of course uh centralization
decentral but but like we mentioned before as well things noster bitcoin orthodoxy in this case
and having ancap value you know that uh that decentralization power i think makes it hard to
for example lichenstein right oh okay so it's funny because people okay this is what anna is
saying it's funny because people say that ancapistan will create tyrants or warlords we
already have warlords we call them presidents and prime ministers the difference is we've been
brainwashed to thinking their violence is legitimate yeah there you go so it's legitimized
monopoly on violence that's what the state is and a lot of people draw their conclusions based on
their current reality they can't think of something they can't think of a world of anarchy because
There's never been one, right?
They can't think first line of Bitcoin.
No one imagined Bitcoin would be possible until it was.
Just because Ancapistan hasn't existed yet doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to it.
I'm of the idea that shoot for the stars because even if you fall short, you'll still get far.
So I think morally, intellectually makes sense.
It's not like socialism.
I don't think Ancapistan or anarcho-capitalism sells you a utopia.
It reaches a logical conclusion based on free market principles, individuals, voluntary cooperation.
It starts from a moral point.
It's a philosophy, you know, and that makes sense.
In my point of view, anarcho-capitalism makes sense.
And some people might call it extreme.
And we should work towards that because even if we fall short, we would fall into a world with a small government.
And I think a lot of people can agree with that.
That would be a net benefit even if we don't get an encapistan.
Okay, so Anne Hearn responds,
Most humans can't think of things that don't exist.
Only a few people truly have the imagination needed to create something that hasn't existed before.
Socialism violates thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not covet.
Covet, I don't know how to pronounce that.
Democracy creates the illusion of consent.
You voted, so you agreed.
The moment you use force to take from people, even for good reasons, you've violated God's law.
30 at gunpoint is against the Holy Bible.
I completely agree.
It's from Hoppe, a good book.
Democracy, the God that Failed.
It's a lot of these things that are brainwashed into you, right?
Democracy is good.
Government is good.
Who are the people peddling this, right?
It's the state, right?
The education system is controlled by the state.
Of course, they're going to be telling you these things are good, right?
and thinking otherwise is perhaps not something you want to they just they don't encourage it
let's just say that so democracy is two wolves and a sheep on dinner the majority has no more
right to steal from me than a kingdom actually it's worse at least with the king you know who's
oppressing you totally agree you know we know the other argument democracy is a voting game
and it's high time preference because the guy in power only has a limited amount of time to
steal from you. So that's something else I know. Seyfriede Namuz has been also, he's a proponent
of, you know, even though he's an ANCAP, he thinks monarchy is generally better than democracies,
you know, because at least, yeah, like you mentioned, you know, who's oppressing you,
but also kings, since they intend to be in power, not just for their lives, but you know,
their offspring will also, in theory, be in power. So because of this, they tend to have a more
long time horizon in their
or low time
preference in their decisions.
Yeah, so
Anne Hearn says, I'll take monarchy
over democracy any day.
Yeah, I found the arguments quite
compelling. It makes sense.
And Saifidine has given
the human analysis, I believe. He wrote a
paper on it. I haven't read it myself, but
I've heard in this podcast that he
compared in the Middle
East, the countries that
switched from monarchy to
democracy and saw the their um their fiat basically their fiat coin uh the fiat coin
devalued more in the democratic nations than in the ones who continue to have a monarchy
so i guess that that that also gives you a nice little hint there of uh of what's better democracy
or monarchy okay so on her response something about fiat that you don't know but uh it's against
the bible oh really explain that further proverbs 11 1 a just wait is his delight fiat currency is
a false balance bitcoin is a just wait i'm guessing gold was also a just wait or is still
a just wait right but bitcoin has well everyone here's a bitcoiner for those listening so
Yeah, we understand why Bitcoin is superior to gold.
That's interesting.
I didn't know about that.
Okay, so we've enhanced fiat.
Yep, fiat.
So that's, I guess, the next question would be, I guess,
Enkampistan, obviously, would be the logical coin to take.
The question, do you think this has, if Enkampistan were to come to fruition,
would that have a snowball effect around the world So I know like the French Revolution happened and then that seemed to have snowballed revolutions all around the world So like but it was in theory of freedom movement
and that was back then, you know,
when communication wasn't as advanced as it is today.
Oh, interesting.
And Herman says, I'm not sure about that.
Most people seem to be okay with the status quo.
It's hard to convince people to use Bitcoin as real money.
Yeah, I know, definitely is.
But again, I think in this thread with Lesser and Sheet, they start talking about the weak and the strong.
I think that the weak will just follow the strong.
It actually depends on who the strong are more than the weak will just follow.
So if the strong, like a strong being, let's say people who hold the wealth, in this case, Bitcoin,
it's always going to be good versus evil, right?
They're bad people.
We've seen, we know bad people have Bitcoin right now,
especially now with all this Wall Street adoption and whatnot.
I think it does come down to the strong versus the strong
and who can influence the masses more, right?
And yeah, I guess you could say the evil side
perhaps has more influence over the week
in this stage of fiat, I guess,
or the timeline of humanity.
on her and saying,
yeah, but realistically,
we just need to create change.
Governments won't voluntarily
stop their control over money,
but I don't need them to.
I can build a better life now,
my family, my parish, my community.
Yeah, but I agree that
I think that creates a snowball effect
because just because a person is weak,
let's say,
weak in the sense that
they just do what they're told
without thinking about critical.
Despite that,
enough of those people
have the ability to see reality.
If they can see on TV,
and again, this is where communication comes in.
We can spread communication out faster than ever.
If they can see the wealth and the prosperity
in different parts of the world,
I think it's only natural that eventually
some of those weak people can start asking themselves,
why is it so much better over there?
Because I think even if you're weak now,
you can become strong.
It's not a permanent state.
It's opening them.
And then I think that just snowballs in time.
I think the state also does, you can see in the actions of the state, the state wants to keep their population ignorant.
What do big states do? They cut off the Internet.
Like you see in Iran and China, you don't have access to certain platforms.
So why go through the effort of doing that?
Well, I mean, because they know if they let their, quote unquote, weak people get access to that information,
Even if they're supposedly weak, I think there's a, you know, it could convert enough of them to become strong and challenge the state of it.
So Anhurn says that's true.
Yeah, so again, I do think there's a snowball.
If some type of enkabistan can come into fruition, even if it's short-lived, even if the government invades it, just the fact that it was possible, I think that could raise, that could snowball over the years.
even if it's taken over quickly it's something people can learn from like okay these mistakes
were made maybe we shouldn't such a have a such a defined territory of uh free-minded individuals
or maybe we should have been next to these states i don't know i don't know this is all theoretical
stuff but it's interesting to do so okay so i don't know yeah i completely agree okay so
there was another oh there's another interesting comment here in um
on the in the in the thread though the beef said something like he doesn't believe in coercion
coercion now you know basic basic and caps you know non-aggression but lesser did an interesting
response she did an interesting response where like in religion excommunication and banishment
are a form of coercion so i guess what do you think of that those comments so anton says yeah
but that's not a violation of the NAP. Communities have laws and you should follow them. The point
of Ancapistan is not that it's, communities have laws and you should follow them. The point of
Ancapistan is not that it's a place where there are no laws. It's a small self, it's small self
governing communities. Yeah, I agree. So when I read that comment, I was thinking, yeah, there's
excommunication, there's banishment. There are rules in communities. If you don't want something,
if you want to live in a place in a community you should abide to the norms it's voluntary no one's
forcing you to live there and if you don't want to follow those rules well then you got to get out
it's i think it's quite quite simple no one wants drug addicts in their streets or i think most
people don't uh and i think it's in the right of the community if you agree to live there you should
abide to the rules and you can just go find a place where that aligns more with your morality
now if you agreed with being complete a complete liberal or don't know exactly the term would like
If you want to be drugging or if you want junkies on the street, you want prostitution
everywhere, yeah, go to that community.
But I'm pretty sure a community like that will eventually degrade and cease to exist.
Again, that's why I think you need something like religion, in this case, Orthodox Christianity
as a guiding light to teach humans or instill a sense of morality.
It's something that has to be learned.
You're selfish as a baby, right?
You want everything for yourself.
You need to learn low time.
It has to be instilled into humanity, into a human.
Low time preference is something that just naturally comes.
It has to be trained.
So that's, again, that's why I think religion plays an important role in this.
Generally, the big religions tend to teach low time preference, you know?
And then I also said the difference between this and the state, which is what communities,
the difference between this and the state is that when I pay taxes, a gun is pointed at me.
That's not voluntary.
Atheists often mention, render unto Caesar.
Atheists do a complete 180 on render unto Caesar.
They completely misunderstand it.
This was Jesus.
Jesus' way of telling the world that governments, if they are to exist, should not handle matters of faith, spirituality, or morality.
Let them deal with other matters.
Have them serve the Lord and then pass judgment on what the Lord doesn't guide against.
Yep. And that sounds kind of, that sounds logical to me. And that's what we've been doing with time. Separation of church and state. Right now we're trying to do separation of money and state. So the more the state is, I guess, separated from our lives, I would say, again, and cap. So I would say no state is the best, right? Less state is, okay, good enough. But yeah, basically.
agree i agree completely and is there anything else you would like to include you think it's
worth mentioning out there again i'm hoping lesser in and the beev will also want to come oh
that's another topic okay so oh god beev beev i forgot if he's a roman catholic what he's following
what's your opinion on that is following any religion okay any of the big religions is that
good enough or do you think people should heavily consider orthodox christianity because of the
values or decentralization nature of it so on her response following some religion
is better than no religion i believe the others are wrong of course i even believe that about
buddhism and others all right yeah so you basically you consider that they should look
into orthodox christianity a bit more and uh instead of just dismissing it yeah i mean
that again if you're raised in a roman catholic family but it makes sense to like not like this
is my religion it's why look into something else like in the in a way followers something i've heard
a lot in the end it's all christianity like choose your branch but uh yeah i i guess the message here
would be look into the different things i think it's like just when people got into bitcoin i think
most people get into Bitcoin looking for a way to conserve purchasing power, right? So I think
they end up comparing everything, no stock, comparing stocks, gold, silver, real estate.
I think a similar process, something that perhaps should be taken when it comes to spirituality,
look into everything, you know, but agree. Some, a religion, a major religion is better than no
religion. So Anhan responds, yeah, and if you're an atheist hearing this, I was you. I know how
absurd this all sounds. I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to honestly examine
your worldview. Don't believe me. Don't believe anyone, whether they're Catholic or Orthodox.
It is your life. Live it. But I ask you to actually research what you believe. Plain and
simple. Verify, don't trust. That's in the ethos. Yeah. So, okay. Anything else you would like to
include? I think we, we, it's important to mention. Okay. And her response. No, I think
we've gone through a lot of important topics. I do want to eventually join the, that discussion
with Lesserin and the beef. Uh, though. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be interesting. Yeah. It will
definitely be interesting. I got to get back to them. So not Nostra messages are kind of
buggy. Sometimes I don't even know if they re they receive the text, but I'll be looking
into that. I am moving currently. I'm changing countries. So I think it'll be a month or two
before I can organize things, but it'll be good. I'll be happy to have you on and we can focus
perhaps on the different branches of Christianity. Thank you. And sorry for the technical issues
today. And no worries. This was interesting. The first time I do a podcast like this, I'll do the
editing so that there's no these prolonged silences. They'll be more fluid. Anyways,
Arndt, thank you for joining and look forward to having you on.
So take care.