Автор: Анкап-тян

Minarchists are wasting their time

Bitarch’s Column

In Western Europe, especially in German-speaking countries, minarchist (classical-liberal) parties have existed for many years. The ideology of the LPR and, in particular, Mikhail Svetov, is very similar to the ideas of the Swiss FDP.Die Liberalen, which is not surprising, as he praises Switzerland in almost every lecture as the country closest to libertarianism.

In reality, he only provides facts taken out of context, omitting the prevalence of ever-increasing regulation and taxes that are not symbolic at all. This is not surprising—the influence of FDP.Die Liberalen on Swiss politics is not that great, and in recent years it has garnered only slightly more than 15% of the votes in parliament. Compared to other countries, in many of which minarchist parties are not represented in parliament at all, this is a decent result. But to build a libertarian society through election victories, this is completely insufficient. A similar picture exists in Germany—the results of the local FDP are even slightly more modest than the Swiss ones, remaining at around 10% for many decades.

Evaluating the prospects of the LPR in Russia, it is worth noting that in our society, the ideas of minarchism are even more marginal than in Europe. This party is unlikely to even enter the State Duma, let alone have any significant influence on state policy. Minarchists in Europe failed to achieve this over decades of active political struggle, and it is completely foolish to hope that it will be different in the RF.

To promote libertarianism, the path of party struggle clearly cannot be the only one. Hoping for a gradual transition to a free society through minarchism is also meaningless. In my opinion, a more realistic approach is to educate people with the ideas of a free society and the model of extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions (ECJ) as a transitional model to a free society with a full NAP.

The Question of Emancipation

According to the principle of self-ownership, a person owns their body and its derivatives. Does it not follow from this that the mother (or both parents) owns their child?

анонимный вопрос

Under ancap, under what conditions does a sentient being/program that is not human cease to be property and obtain rights equal to human rights?

Dmitry

Indeed, according to the principle of self-ownership, both a child and an artificial intelligence are the property of their creators. But the very concept of property is a convention. And exactly what rights the right of ownership entails is also a convention. Some sentient beings agree to tolerate certain behavior of other sentient beings if, for some reason, they believe those others have the right to do so. Generalizing the countlessly diverse behavior of the most varied sentient beings, wise lawyers formulate legal principles which, in particular, state:

  • which set of rights is called the right of ownership
  • what constitutes a human
  • that a sentient human possesses the right of ownership over themselves
  • that since a child almost inevitably grows into a sentient human, it makes sense to recognize part of the rights of a sentient human in advance
  • how a growing child will obtain those rights that they were not yet entitled to at birth
  • how a sentient being that is not human can obtain rights equal to human rights

The conclusions of different lawyers may not coincide. Different people may share the opinions of different lawyers to varying degrees. Some people are ready to use violence for the sake of asserting their ideas about legal doctrine, while some are not.

And ancap, as applied to the issue under consideration, is simply such a legal doctrine which asserts that there is no one whose opinion on this matter is uniquely and a priori correct, and subject to imposition on all others through the unlimited application of force.

The moment you declare that ancap is the principle of self-ownership raised to an absolute, or the principle of non-aggression raised to an absolute, or the principle of freedom of contract raised to an absolute—you are deviating from the principles of ancap. Keep your absolute away from children (and other borderline legal phenomena).

Keep the absolute away from children!

How will the consequences of catastrophes and natural disasters be fought under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

So, we have a situation: a bridge has collapsed, a house has burned down, a mine has caved in, a typhoon has hit, people have suffered, and Putin isn’t around, so there is no one to promise every victim a couple of million rubles from the budget.

The most reliable and systemic solution, upon which ancap theorists place their main bet, is, of course, insurance companies. Knowing that there is no state and that they must rely on themselves, people have far more incentive to insure their risks. Thus, the insured receive payouts, the uninsured lament their stinginess, and everything takes its course: some insurance companies handle the situation with dignity, some are forced to refinance urgently, and some go bankrupt, thereby cleaning up the market. New insurance premiums trickle in, and even more so, because the issue of risk has temporarily risen to the top of the rankings, policies are easier to sell, and everyone strikes while the iron is hot.

But it is not enough to pay money to those who applied for payouts; first, the rubble must be cleared, evacuations carried out, fires extinguished, and so on—in short, the further spread of the disaster must be stopped. This is profitable for insurance companies, but the free-rider effect arises: for example, one company may start the work while another does not, thereby incurring lower costs. A logical solution appears to be the advance creation and maintenance of rescue services by insurance companies, with funding, for example, proportional to policies sold, or simply equally, depending on their agreement. Effectively, for insurance companies, this is something like the reinsurance of risks.

Finally, it may happen that help is needed urgently, but specialized services are far away, or the scale of the disaster is such that specialists certainly cannot cope. In this situation, volunteers, of course, come to the rescue. Volunteers come to help people even in Putin’s Russia, with all its paternalism and all the dangers awaiting those who engage in crowdfunding from the side of the state—so in the absence of this factor, the readiness to come to the rescue will only improve.

Ancap is not some new, unseen social order where everything will be completely different and no old mechanisms will work. Simply mentally remove the state, and in most cases, you will find that it is either not needed at all or is very easy to replace.

Putin will not come and will not put out the fire

Could private security companies, in the process of competition, engage in physical combat against competitors or torture those who will not use their services?

анонимный вопрос

I think no one doubts that they have the technical capability for such actions, which means they cannot be ruled out. Of course, such excesses will occur; the only question is what they will lead to.

First, let’s consider an example of a monopoly security structure like the “police.” If a competitor emerges, wishing to provide security services to someone other than the police, the police will, of course, enter into a physical struggle with them. This might look boring: initiating a case, conducting an inspection, arrest, investigation, trial, fines, and imprisonment. It might look exciting: chases, shootouts, a coffin, a cemetery. One way or another, the competitor is eliminated, simply because most citizens are convinced of the benefit of a state monopoly on violence, as Hobbes himself proclaimed and Shulman herself confirmed. Will the police torture those who do not use their services? Worse. They will torture those who pay for their services, simply because they can, and there is nothing to oppose them with. More precisely, it is proposed to oppose this lawlessness with the activities of specialized alternative security enterprises: the prosecutor’s office, the internal security department, and so on. In other words, even in current reality, no one is ready to agree to a full and comprehensive monopoly on violence by a single actor. It is proposed that the watchmen be watched.

Now let’s consider a gangster “protection racket” like those that, according to legend, flooded the streets in the nineties. If a city is large enough, there may be several competing rackets. In what cases do rackets enter into physical clashes with competitors? First, the clashes must be inexpensive (plenty of cheap fighters). Second, the disputed business must be quite lucrative. But if a certain business is potentially capable of bringing good money to a racket, it can afford to choose the racket that works better and cheaper, because otherwise, one can always turn to competitors. Thus, competition between rackets will inevitably lead to a reduction in extortion, meaning that physical clashes with competitors will become increasingly unjustifiable. Again, the faster fighters are spent, the more expensive they become. And so, bloody clashes become a rarity, and instead, the bosses settle everything “according to the code.”

And what about torturing those who are not clients? Of course, it is profitable for a racket to spread rumors about punishments for the stubborn. In reality, however, conducting such activities will become completely redundant over time, especially since just a couple or three well-publicized precedents—and few will risk being completely without protection, and bothering someone else’s client is already against the code and fraught with danger. Again, if someone is without protection, it does not mean they are completely harmless, or that there is no one to stand up for them. Simply put, in general, the people standing up for them will be amateurs, but amateurs can also be rare psychos. So why risk it?

The fighters are cheap, but already a bit worn out

The market will decide—but what about those people who dedicated their whole lives to creativity and died in poverty?

The default, most striking example is Van Gogh—but even that is very relative. How does the market decide on art? Of course, it may be unfair that talented musicians are shut down by the FSB (although they become popular), or unfair that there are provincial artists whom nobody knows about. Tell us about art under an ideal ancap. How does the market decide on art?

Yan Libertine

The ability to create, that is, to invent and produce something that did not exist before, will be valued by those who find what currently exists insufficient. Van Gogh’s tragedy was not that he dedicated his life to creativity, but that his form of self-expression was in low demand among his contemporaries. It is his sacred right to create what he wishes to create, using what he has acquired through legitimate means. However, if he wishes to sell the fruits of his creativity to someone, he will still have to find someone willing to buy it.

A characteristic of many creative natures is their impracticality. Van Gogh himself claimed that a painter’s worst enemy is the art dealer. A creator working on commission considers their own vision far more important and significant than the opinion of the client. It is not surprising that this quite often leads to conflicts. A creator working by the call of inspiration often does not even consider who might need the result of their work or why.

But everything I just wrote about creators can also be applied to an entrepreneur. Similarly, instead of working for a boss, they venture into the free market, assuming that their product will be more in demand. They say nine out of ten companies close after their first year of operation, so the market is no more merciful to entrepreneurs than it is to artists. Both act under conditions of future uncertainty, assuming they know better than others what people need and how to provide it.

But, besides entrepreneurs who wish to directly create something new, there are people who wish to help in the creation of the new. Artists are helped by patrons. Innovative entrepreneurs are helped by venture capitalists. Some are driven by the desire to earn from breakthrough projects, believing their intuition works better than the market average. Some are obsessed with the idea of making the world a better place. Some are driven by vanity. Some simply have warm feelings for the creator. Van Gogh, for example, was helped by his brother Theo.

The attempt to organize state support for creators instead of private patronage leads to the appearance of stifling monstrosities like the USSR Union of Writers, the USSR Union of Artists, and the USSR Union of Composers. Choosing between pop art and opportunistic art, I would still prefer pop, although I would prefer not to choose between these two options at all, since the world is infinitely more diverse, and adhering to the mainstream is by no means mandatory.

Especially since technology has already largely neutralized the factor of provincialism, as the internet is global. The tools for monetizing art under ancap will, for the most part, be the same as they are now. This includes eBay, Patreon, or even something like DeviantArt—in short, it’s impossible to list them all.

Many questions and concerns

Greetings. I have a few concerns regarding ancap (or rather, regarding the anarchic part). First, is anarchy possible within a single state (territory)? Have there been such cases in history? How long did they last? Second, if the anarchic movement comes to power worldwide, could it happen that communities grow into the well-known states, and creating one’s own would be extremely difficult? Third, who will decide the important issues that the state solves today? No, I’m not talking about roads. I’m talking about money (who will handle its emission?), about emigration and immigration (will there be equivalents of visa centers, who will deal with this), about basic documents (will passports exist, who will issue them?), and who will handle ecology (often, to extract the maximum profit, it is better to use environmentally harmful means as they are simply cheaper)?

Kirill

Possibility of Anarchy

I have repeatedly written that law is rooted in human relationships and is determined by the willingness to tolerate certain actions on the part of other people. Is anarchy possible in some more or less distinct territory? Yes, if a critical number of residents of that territory are unwilling to tolerate “archy”—that is, compulsory management, the seizure of resources under the pretext of government needs, and everything else that accompanies the state.

Have there been such cases in history? Two fairly prolonged ones are well-documented: Ireland and Iceland. In both cases, instead of a state, there was what would now be called contractual jurisdictions, where people had a choice of whom exactly to turn to for conflict resolution and how exactly to coordinate their actions.

The world has now become much more globalized, and for an anarchic society to feel secure, it is not necessary to live compactly in a specific territory. Although many know from personal experience how much it helps when you are physically surrounded by like-minded people and you can afford exactly the lifestyle you prefer, knowing that you will find understanding and support among those around you. So, the pull toward territorial communities will remain, but they have no need to strive for considerable geographical extent; it is unlikely to be on a scale larger than a city.

Transformation of Society into a State

Do I fear that such poleis (the word “community” has been distorted by mutual responsibility, which facilitates its oppression by an external aggressor, so I would prefer not to use it) will turn into states? In conditions of global informational connectivity? In conditions where extraterritorial societies exist alongside territorial ones? You know, I find that doubtful; it’s roughly like fearing that birds will become dinosaurs again. The conditions are not the same. The short era of states is ending. (And, I hope, I don’t need to further explain that “polis” is a conventional name; real territorial anarchic societies will only slightly resemble ancient models)

Visas

Will some poleis provide access to outsiders only by special invitation? Yes, it is quite possible. Whoever invited them is responsible for the guest—this is a simple and natural mechanism that works perfectly without any state, its visa centers, and officials issuing entry permits.

Private Money

Money in the form of cryptocurrencies already circulates perfectly in a private manner; I see no reason why they should stop doing so, since the technology allows it.

Ecology

Ecology is a complex of knowledge and technologies applied to transform nature in such a way that humans can live most comfortably under the new conditions. Accordingly, the more people live in a certain territory and the wealthier they live, the higher the demand for ecology, and the fewer, the lower. Therefore, in territories where no one lives and no one claims, there is the least demand for any ecological transformations. It could be a primitive wilderness or a smoke-belching plant; however, where demand for ecology appears, there will be a nature reserve, a well-maintained park, a lawn convenient for lounging on the grass, a flower in a pot, or simply walls painted in a cheerful green color and a kitten in a phone app—depending on the extent to which elements of living nature are demanded in a specific place.

A conventional community of lovers of life among greenery in a modern city

Why you shouldn’t expect a “good state”?

Told by Bitarch

Among many oppositionists, there is an opinion that it is enough to do in Russia “as in Europe” and we will live almost in paradise. They usually praise Western countries for the separation of powers, honest courts, a transparent budget, smart regulation, fair taxes, freedom of speech, and many other things missing in the RF. But some of these people then begin to notice that all those achievements, for which they were ready to leave their homes, are slowly but surely fading even in their beloved West, let alone being transferred to Russia.

Why does this happen, and why is it pointless to wait for the state to improve, just as it is pointless to emigrate? I am ready to propose a hypothesis based on thoughts from the lectures of the famous sociologist Ella Paneyakh (they are on YouTube). I cannot guarantee the absolute accuracy of this hypothesis, but I believe the probability of it being true is over 99%.

In her lectures, Ella explains the theory of the stationary bandit, explaining the positive (creative, progressive) vector along which the state guided society as a necessity for military superiority over other stationary bandits. If one of them preferred traditional values and obscurantism, while another preferred progress and human rights, the latter would sooner or later achieve technological superiority over the former. Ultimately, traditionalists and supporters of a “brutal” violent hierarchy were simply conquered by more progressive states. Since the development of technology is impossible without respect for the individual and human rights, states were forced to adopt the best practices for ensuring personal freedoms from one another, increasing trust in the tax system through a transparent budget, creating social elevators for youth, fighting corruption, and offering asylum to defectors.

After World War II, as a result of the emergence of the doctrine of deterrence through the threat of mutually assured destruction, wars between more or less developed countries ceased completely. After all, no politician will dare to start a war if they know they themselves can be destroyed. As a result, the incentive to develop and create better conditions for their own citizens disappeared. After all, no one is threatening you, and your own population can be suppressed even with ordinary batons and tear gas.

The lack of an incentive to develop does not mean a stop in the competition of state practices; it is just that now states adopt methods of oppressing their own citizens from one another — hidden taxes, internet censorship, fighting protests and rallies, social ratings, surveillance, etc. You have probably noticed that some of these appeared first here and then in the West, others vice versa. But in general, both here and in the West, the volume of rights and freedoms is gradually, and at an increasingly rapid pace, decreasing. Emigration becomes pointless, because after a certain amount of time, all those shortcomings for which you left will also appear in your new location.

How can we bring back the competition of positive practices? By getting rid of the territorial monopoly of the state and moving to a system of extra-territorial contractual jurisdictions (ETCJs), we will create an incentive for individual ETCJs to compete for citizens. After all, switching to another ETCJ would be as simple as changing a mobile operator. Consequently, the managements of these companies will be interested in offering the best conditions for citizens.

Application for choosing a jurisdiction

2018, results

Friends, thank you so much for being with me in the past year! Today marks exactly seven months since the project’s birth. It is already time to summarize some results.

The project has nearly five hundred subscribers on Telegram, nearly fifty on Twitter, and nearly a hundred on Facebook. This is modest. Next year, I want to pay more attention to viral content, whose task is simple — to be reposted and attract people to the main resource, where a more thoughtful acquaintance will take place.

The format of regular answers to readers’ questions, interspersed with separate notes, has proven itself excellent. I judge this primarily by the fact that new questions come in constantly, and the queue has stretched a month ahead. Your donations also help me understand that I am doing the right thing.

A community has gradually formed around the project, which not only inspires me to continue my activities but also greatly helps in the work. For instance, I have a permanent co-author, several consultants on specialized issues, regular authors of interesting questions — and simply a large number of well-wishers.

I will be glad to read your congratulations, wishes, and cooperation proposals in the comments or in the chat. I will be even happier to see reposts of any project materials on some active platforms.

I received a postcard of extreme kawaiiness for the New Year

Case study on the crisis in mechanical engineering

Miloš

The economic crisis that began in 2014 hit the Russian mechanical engineering industry hard. Compared to 2008, the situation for enterprises was complicated by political sanctions against Russia. On one hand, the twofold drop in the ruble became a positive factor, increasing the cost of similar foreign machines and reducing competition in the domestic market for domestic producers. On the other hand, imported components, on which the production of Russian equipment heavily depends, became more expensive. The cost of mechanical engineering products rose. Manufacturing plants became concerned with import substitution, but so far this task has not been solved.

Another negative factor was the decline in economic needs. With the exception of orders placed by the military-industrial complex and state corporations, the rest of the market slumped sharply. Total demand for the products of mechanical engineering companies decreased more than it did in 2008.

Unlike our enterprises, foreign companies quickly reoriented and began to additionally stimulate demand for their products in Russia by introducing new financial services. They began providing buyers with unprecedented discounts, long-term interest-free installments, leasing, and practicing other methods to stimulate purchasing activity.

In the crisis situation, domestic companies chose different tactics. A number of enterprises (for example, a crane manufacturing plant in Chelyabinsk) diversified sharply, changing their assortment and concentrating efforts on exports and working with key clients. However, most mechanical engineering companies preferred to sharply reduce the amount of products manufactured, focusing on various ways to optimize expenses and reduce costs.

One of the enterprises caught in the whirlwind of these economic events and experiencing the negative consequences of the crisis was the Mashinstroy holding (name changed).

About the company

The Mashinstroy production holding has a long history and tradition. It includes production enterprises, a design bureau, and its own sales unit. The holding produces tractors, municipal equipment, bulldozers, and special-purpose equipment for the military-industrial complex with a fairly wide range of modifications. It is one of the few mechanical engineering companies in Russia that has preserved the engineering competencies and production base necessary for producing modern products.

Sales Market

Mashinstroy works with customers from Russia and small developing countries, to which sales are carried out largely through political channels. The competitive environment in which it offers its products is not very saturated. On one hand, there are Western manufacturers, whose equipment, after the fall of the ruble, exceeds the cost of similar products from the holding by 30% or more; on the other, there are Chinese plants, whose equipment is lower in quality and currently not widespread in Russia.

Management

The mechanical engineering holding consists of a number of independent enterprises located in different regions of Russia. They are managed by a management company located in Yekaterinburg. The powers of plant directors are limited to solving only operational issues. All strategic tasks are formed in the management company. In most cases, all communications between enterprises were also carried out through the management company.

The formalized development strategy of the mechanical engineering holding became irrelevant under the current conditions. A new anti-crisis strategy has not been adopted. In this situation, each head of an enterprise within the holding independently seeks solutions to exit the crisis.

Finances

A high level of fixed costs remained in the holding. At the same time, product output dropped sharply, leading to a fall in turnover and profitability. High indebtedness and the inability to take new bank loans increased the need for working capital. For this reason, the deadlines for several contracts were missed. Against this backdrop, financial flows decreased even further.

Personnel

As a result of the reduction in production volumes, salaries fell in most divisions of the holding. Key specialists began to resign. The level of motivation and engagement of personnel dropped sharply. Gradually, some enterprises began switching to a part-time work week, which served as another push for the resignation of several important specialists.

Products

The range of products is quite wide: municipal, agricultural, quarry, and construction equipment. In addition, a number of enterprises have competencies in producing military equipment. The engineering company constantly develops new equipment, including innovative types. New modifications of existing products are constantly being developed, and models that have proven themselves in the market are being updated.

General Situation

Starting from 2014, the situation in the holding has been constantly deteriorating. A shortage of working capital makes it impossible to ensure the deadlines for existing contracts. Despite the demand for the holding’s equipment, the ability of the enterprises to meet the needs of the mechanical engineering market has also decreased. Parallel to this, the capacity of the Russian market is shrinking.

In the absence of an actual strategy in the field of sales and marketing, a large amount of work-in-progress has accumulated, which, against the backdrop of a shortage of working capital, further exacerbates the situation of the mechanical engineering holding.

With rapidly falling turnover, the holding’s fixed costs remained at the previous level for quite a long time. Profitability began to drop rapidly, going into the negative within a year. Having a large loan portfolio, the holding began to delay loan payments. Delays in salary payments appeared in each of the business units at the enterprise.

Questions

  1. What solutions do you see for bringing the Mashinstroy holding out of the crisis?
  2. How should these solutions be integrated into the overall development strategy of the holding?

Answer

1. What are the downsides of this type of enterprise organization, such as a holding? First and foremost—transfer pricing. The owner of a holding always has the temptation to sell the products of one of their enterprises to another of their enterprises not at a market price, but at an undervalued one. What does such a protectionist policy lead to? Exactly the same thing that protectionism at the state level leads to. The holding’s enterprises become less competitive compared to their direct competitors in the global market, as they may not care much about sales. Why bother if the buyer is “one of their own”? They will buy anyway.

During a period of economic growth, this all seems like trivia, but in a crisis, there are no trivialities.

Thus, the first and obvious direction of optimization is increasing the autonomy of the holding’s enterprises.

2. A crisis is always characterized by a decrease in the share of CAPEX and an increase in the share of OPEX in enterprise budgets. So, the second obvious direction of optimization will be reorienting from the finished products market to the production of spare parts, warranty and post-warranty service; as for finished equipment, the goal should be not so much to fight for the shrinking Russian market as to push into the global market with all possible strength.

3. A strong point of Russian mechanical engineering is still a fairly powerful design school. It makes sense to negotiate with the Chinese about production in China based on Russian projects. Yes, this means that the holding’s design units act directly to the detriment of the production units. From the perspective of social obligations, it is not very “comme il faut” to reduce labor-intensive production, but from the perspective of the holding owner, developing a potentially more high-margin research and design direction is certainly profitable.

4. When the price of labor drops even further compared to the Chinese, production in Russia can be resumed, and “made in Russia” mechanical engineering products can be sold in the Celestial Empire, which sounds fantastic for now, but the Russian leadership is confidently moving the country in exactly this direction. Of course, this will mean the entry of Chinese comrades into the capital of the corresponding enterprises of the holding. It is also possible that the enterprises could be offloaded to them entirely, and even for a relatively decent price. Of course, this move might not work, because you never know exactly when the state will decide to tie the hands of a drowning man, imagining he actually intended to save himself. However, this caveat applies to absolutely any step taken by a legal business, so it is not necessary to repeat it every time.

5. A lack of working capital means that strategic investors must be sought. For this, it may be necessary to take some of the holding’s enterprises public through an IPO, which, in essence, would mean their exit from the holding while the current owner retains, say, a blocking package of shares. In return, refinancing, a change to more effective management, and involvement in new technological and sales chains could give these enterprises a development impulse, and for the current owner, mean a transition from losses to profits.