Автор: Анкап-тян

From Chetvernin, yes, and seemingly from other libertarians, I’ve heard that an oral agreement is also an agreement.

Hmm. Explain how you intend to verify the truth of a contract, that it existed, if there is no explicit evidence of it (no people, no audio or video recordings)? Or how will you prove that they are not forged (for example, an email)?

Oral contract

Nothing about a past event can be said to have actually happened with a hundred percent guarantee, even when it comes to natural phenomena, let alone human activity.

So-called laws of nature are general principles derived from observations based on incomplete induction. Any documents could have been drawn up and signed retroactively, or falsified in some other way. Witness testimonies are systematically mendacious. Banknotes are forged. Even the almighty blockchain cannot fully guarantee that you won’t be cheated with a money transfer to your wallet.

So signatures on a contract, a herd of witnesses, security camera footage, an oath on the constitution, and so on—these are merely additional arguments presented so that the judge believes that yes, some event in the past did take place. After which the judge makes a decision: I, so-and-so, stake my reputation and assert that such-and-such an event occurred, and from this I draw such-and-such conclusions.

And if you have neither a signed contract nor witnesses to the agreement, but it is known that until now you have given no reason to doubt your words, and in this case you behaved as if a contract had been concluded, then there is a considerable probability that the judge will believe your assertion about the fact that an oral contract was concluded, and will rule in your favor.

Yes, I admit that within one state legislative system or another, a judge may be expressly forbidden from considering transactions true if they are not certified in the manner established by the state. But when you ask how we intend to proceed in the absence of reliable evidence, it can be assumed that the question is actually being asked about ancap.

How does libertarianism view human cloning?

анонимный вопрос

Human cloning is a long-known natural phenomenon, the consequences of which most of us have encountered without experiencing any undue difficulties. Clones, due to their peculiarities, are loved in fiction—so much so that introducing a clone into a plot is becoming a sign of a certain cliché. Cloned people are actively used in psychological and other medical studies when it is necessary to exclude the influence of genetic differences and focus on environmental factors. In short, the fact that human clones exist is as commonplace as the existence of albinos. So what if they are monozygotic twins; have we never seen identical twins?

At the end of the last century, advanced biotechnologies made it possible to clone adult organisms. Theoretically, nothing prevents cloning humans in a similar way. How would clones obtained from adult humans differ from clones obtained at the zygote division stage? Only in the fact that they would be of different ages. In other words, the social consequences would be significantly fewer than with natural twins—at least those can be mistaken for one another, although, for example, their fingerprints already differ—whereas it is much harder to mistake twins of different ages.

What is the point of cloning an entire adult human? Practically zero. Making ordinary children is much easier and cheaper. What is actually capable of bringing benefit is tissue cloning. An organ grown from oneself will graft much better during transplantation.

About the horror stories

I will immediately dismiss the religious ones, since groundless fantasies can be absolutely arbitrary, and it is impossible to analyze them all. 

People will be cloned, grown, and then sliced for organs. Well, guys, that’s like claiming that cars will be assembled and then dismantled for spare parts. Growing a less differentiated cell culture is much easier and cheaper.

Rich people will copy their consciousness into their clones. We are currently further from consciousness copying technologies than we are from a manned flight to the edges of the Solar System. We can at least plan the flight with existing technologies, but there are not even any approaches to consciousness transfer. When such technologies appear, it may turn out that clones are completely unnecessary there, and that people have mastered rejuvenation procedures in general.

I have been asked repeatedly how fundamental science will develop without the state. Well, cloning is precisely an example of how the state directly prohibits science, so without the state, it will at least be able to develop, whereas now, in a number of areas marked with red flags, it is forced to move forward along strange detour paths.

Clones are among us!

The “citizens of the USSR” movement is gaining popularity; what do you think about this?

анонимный вопрос

In short: the point is that some people deny the Russian Federation the right to exist on the grounds that it was created in violation of the legislation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And since the USSR was not correctly dissolved, it therefore never went anywhere, and the RF is some kind of illegitimate fly-by-night operation, and a decent person should have nothing to do with the whims of its employees.

I will not dwell on legal hair-splitting because, of course, it is completely unimportant how correctly the state was formed according to the documents. Hello, we are talking about a state; a state is a bandit, what legitimacy? A state exists in heads; it is the willingness of people to submit to coercion because it is carried out in the name of something more important than a human being. It is difficult for people to simply cast the state out of their heads by stating plainly that there is nothing more important than a human being, and therefore there are no grounds to tolerate coercion in the name of various abstract entities. Therefore, they invent another abstract entity—and it takes the place of the acting formal sovereign.

Sometimes I exhibit a certain faint-heartedness and say that I am willing to stop the dismantling of the state at a kind of ultra-minarchism, where states still exist but represent nothing more than names. I know that the state of the Russian Federation is located on this territory. What follows from this in legal terms? Nothing. There is simply such a geographical object, an additional name to designate a place. But at the same time, no other state can just come along and declare that from now on, there will be a state of the Siberian Khanate here, and every subject of the khan—that is, anyone living in such-and-such a territory—must transfer ten thousand satoshis monthly to the khan, otherwise their property will be liquidated. No, dear, there is already an established state here, back off. Here are its borders, here is its capital, and here is its diplomatic mission selling souvenirs.

Will the sect of USSR witnesses collapse the Russian Federation? Very unlikely. But they will contribute their share of doubt as to whether the existing state has any right at all to give people orders. So let these funny guys continue to troll the current authorities, although, of course, if they start using their tools to violate private contracts, it will be an abuse of the unspoken convention on the boundaries of trolling, and that, of course, will not lead them to any good.

Birth rate as a reflection of the tragedy of the commons

Bitarch

Statists often say that the state helps solve the problems of the tragedy of the commons. In reality, of course, it only creates them. The most large-scale of these, capable of leading to the collapse of civilization, is the sharp decline in the birth rate. Indeed, why should a woman spend many sleepless nights changing a baby’s diapers, when it’s far more interesting to go to a club to party with friends and post photos of fashionable clothes on Insta! And what will happen in old age? Absolutely irrelevant — the beloved state will not leave her without a decent pension, and if she votes correctly, it will even provide a free caregiver.

This is a clear tragedy of the commons. For an individual woman, from a resource perspective, it is more profitable not to give birth at all (she will still receive a guaranteed pension in old age, but will not spend resources on raising children). If all the residents of a country do this, tax revenues will fall along with the population of that specific country, and the state will be forced to increase its plunder. Taxes are already at historical highs; accordingly, any further increase will guaranteedly lead to a decline in the entire economy, the departure of business both from the country and “into the shadows,” and ultimately — the collapse of the state.

For my part, I will note that the state solves this tragedy of the commons simply: by paying child benefits. In this way, the birth rate increases among those for whom the amount of the benefit matters. So, from the state’s perspective, nothing terrible is happening: childless wealthy citizens pay for the poor and fertile; justice triumphs. The state is an entire conglomerate of special interest groups, and any challenge coming from the outside world, or even just a fabricated one, can be used as a pretext to increase the size of the state: whether it be high birth rates, low birth rates, high immigration, low immigration, warming, or cooling…

Why is counter-economics much more effective than insurgency and armed struggle?

Bitarch Answers

For most people, a radical change in the socio-political formation of society is usually associated with a revolution, which occurs through armed struggle and the overthrow of the ruling regime. However, people miss the main point—upon coming to power, revolutionaries carry out mass purges of their former opponents, creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred in society (for example, the Red Terror during the Civil War, and later the Stalinist repressions). Often, the revolutionary government itself is overthrown by the opponents of the revolution, and its achievements are destroyed (for example, the Jacobins during the French Revolution). All this happens against a backdrop of famine, economic collapse, and technological degradation. It should also not be forgotten that people acting from the underground do not shy away from using violence. We want to build a libertarian society, that is, a society based on voluntary relations. But here is the problem—people accustomed to violence and a violent (military) hierarchy will most likely use familiar methods against dissenters even after their victory. Simply because they do not know any other way!

There is another, more effective and humane way to reach a free society (voluntarism, ancap)—counter-economics. This is exactly what I advocate for, and I hope for the gradual non-violent construction of such a society.

First and foremost, of course, the ideas themselves must be conveyed to people (taxes are theft; the state is a stationary bandit; it is possible to do without it by replacing its institutions with competing public organizations or extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions with voluntary membership). The state exists in people’s heads as a model of behavior, so it must first be eradicated from there. The more promotion channels we master, the better—leaflets, graffiti, social media groups, online and offline advertising, lectures, videos, books, etc.

I want to convey the main idea to people—the state itself creates no value and exists exclusively through taxation. Even income from the sale of oil and gas is, in reality, tax payments. The fewer taxes the state receives, the weaker it becomes and, accordingly, the fewer resources it can spend on suppressing protests and repressing its opponents.

How can an ordinary person enter the fight against the Leviathan without fearing repressions on its part? The answer is simple—minimizing tax payments and maximizing the extraction of state resources through social services (using any opportunity to obtain benefits, tax refunds, social housing, food stamps, discounted travel passes, etc.).

If possible, one should agree with the employer to have the entire salary paid “under the table.” An alternative option is to switch from an employment contract to a service contract (meaning you become a separate contractor for the employer company and save significantly on taxes and, surprisingly, this is one hundred percent legal). It is also worth learning how to use cryptocurrencies, buying food and things at local markets and from private sellers (rather than in a store where you pay VAT), and using the services of private providers and craftsmen (who do not provide cash receipts).

The state already senses something is wrong, and not long ago it declared a hunt for the self-employed. Well, let it run: the costs of collecting such taxes will far exceed the volume of funds collected.

Agree, it is an extremely optimistic picture: the Leviathan has perished, and man remains

Hi, I wanted to find out how quality control will work (so as not to eat poisoned food, for example) under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

At the moment, in the field of product quality control, as in everywhere where the state controls something, there is more of a security theater than actual protection. Seeing a certificate from yet another “blah-blah-oversight” body stating that a product has passed inspection, the end consumer never knows: perhaps the product really was thoroughly checked, perhaps it was checked half-heartedly, perhaps the certificate was forged, or perhaps it was bought. The reputation of the certifying body may be as low as possible, but the manufacturer will still be obliged to crawl to them and obtain the paperwork if they operate legally. Thus, compulsory state quality certification always degenerates quite quickly into a fiction, which, however, costs some money, and the consumer will pay that money in full.

In the absence of compulsory quality control, the customer initially has no trust in the product manufacturer. What does this lead to? The most elementary quality check, which instantly arises in any bazaar: the consumer tastes the product before buying. This is a phenomenon of a relatively poor market, where no more expensive methods of control are affordable for either the seller or the buyer.

As prosperity grows and more complex goods appear, demand arises for more sophisticated control, such as chemical analysis and other instrumental research. What does “demand arises” mean? People start wondering to what extent the numbers and words on the packaging correspond to the truth. Next, for example, some video blogger (while this is more often television for now, but we are considering pure, unadulterated ancap) conducts a study and sees an increase in audience from its demonstration. Then a store may refer to this study, stating that their product is perfectly fine. In addition, consumer associations and producer associations may appear (it is also not in their interest for someone to slap “sausage” labels on crap and have people think that any sausage is crap), as well as the insurance companies constantly mentioned by ancap theorists—in short, many people will be willing to earn money by satisfying the market demand for product quality verification.

How to explain to a statist-hoplophobe that such a funny thing as state regulation of crypto is not only pointless, but will not make the world even slightly safer?

анонимный вопрос

I don’t quite understand why we are talking about a statist-hoplophobe, and not a statist-guitarist, for example, if the subject is the control over cryptocurrency circulation.

By design, most cryptocurrencies do not require the participation of a trusted intermediary, let alone one necessarily authorized by the state. So, avoiding state regulation of cryptocurrency circulation is very simple, and banning it is pointless. The only thing the state can regulate more or less effectively is the conversion of crypto into fiat, meanwhile, money earned in cryptocurrency still has to be spent primarily in national fiat currencies.

So, a state wishing to regulate cryptocurrency circulation can act like the United States, which pressures crypto exchanges on its territory and demands they snitch on their clients, while crypto exchanges in the rest of the world have simply told these pushovers to get lost and require confirmation during registration that you are not a US citizen. Thus, it is not so easy for a US citizen to perform uncontrolled exchanges of crypto for fiat in significant amounts.

That is why unfortunate US citizens continue to buy drugs with good old cash dollars, and use cryptocurrency far less widely than they could. What does the need to buy drugs with physical cash mean? The need for personal contact with a pusher, additional security measures for everyone involved in the distribution chain—since they are easy targets for robbery—in short, blood, filth, and endless street clashes. Does the world become safer because crack-dealing gangs are dividing territory?

Compare this situation with peaceful and safe Russia, where the only danger for a “zakladchik” [dead-drop courier] and a drug user is the cops, while the level of street violence related to substance circulation has decreased considerably with the arrival of cryptocurrencies in this industry. Where would violence come from if the producer, the buyer, and the courier are physically separated and do not know each other?

It is completely irrelevant how you personally feel about psychoactive substances, but the fact that this market has switched to crypto has made the lives of ordinary, uninvolved people safer, whereas where the market has not switched, everything has remained as it was. Even this single consideration should be enough to convince a person who is truly concerned about their safety that crypto should not be regulated.

Now, if he—as is common among statists—is convinced that the state should regulate absolutely everything that can be somewhat shoehorned into the market of anything even slightly dangerous, because “control is needed, how can we do without control,” then conversation is useless; only personal experience will change his mind.

And if only the guy had a short-barreled—excuse me—a bitcoin…

When the marketlet decided

Residents of the “Pravy Bereg” residential complex in Khimki are outraged that the developer deliberately filled the courtyard with old cars to occupy all the parking spaces. As an alternative, people are forced to buy spaces in the underground parking lot, with prices starting from 800K. How can this problem be solved under ancap?

Dmitry

What you described is a variation of the tragedy of the commons, where insufficiently clear property rights lead to a situation where it is profitable for everyone to exploit a shared resource as intensively as possible, leading to its rapid degradation.

As can be easily guessed from the introduction, the simplest remedy lies precisely in a clearer definition of property rights, for which ancap is quite well-suited. Let’s look at the details.

What do we have now? The developer obtains a permit from the municipality to build a house, reaches some agreement with the previous land owners, builds the house, sells apartments and underground parking, but has no right to take ownership of the land; the land under and around the house is the collective property of the residents because that is how the state decreed it.

How can residents who wish to park near the house and do not want to buy expensive underground parking spaces from the developer defend this right in the current situation? They would have to organize a homeowners association (HOA) and grant it the right to establish paid parking near the house, which must be voted for at a general meeting by a certain number of apartment owners holding at least half of the total residential square footage. After that, it would be costly for the developer to occupy the paid courtyard parking with his cars, and he would consider other ways to monetize his unsold property, for example, by renting out the spaces instead of selling them.

The scheme is not bad, but it is organizationally very complex, and as a result of its application, car owners will be forced to shell out for parking rent, which is clearly not what they would want, as it is much more pleasant to use a resource for free.

Under ancap, there is no external regulator requiring that the land under the house belong to the homeowners, and the developer will be interested in keeping it for himself, renting out both the apartments and all types of parking spaces to the residents. Or, as an option, selling the apartments and renting out the parking spaces. Or selling the apartments and the underground parking while renting out the above-ground ones. Or not creating one of the types of parking at all.

Fans of the HOA form would be able to either buy the land and build a house together by pooling funds, or buy apartments from the developer along with the land, should he be so inclined.

One way or another, in the absence of an external regulator acting as a force majeure, people will not have to perform strange and unnatural roundabout maneuvers when their interests can be stated and defended directly.

Maxim Katz’s nightmare…

Если вы пришли сюда по ссылке из других соцсетей, напоминаю, что на мой канал можно подписаться в телеграме, а для обсуждения деятельности канала там же, в телеграме, создан уютный чатик.

Buying up looted goods

If I illegally appropriate someone else’s property, it is aggressive violence and a violation of the NAP. But if I buy someone else’s property that was illegally appropriated by another person, will that be considered a violation of the NAP? And what if I place an order for certain goods with a person who deals in such things?

Emmanuel Goldstein

This question echoes the question of whether ordering a hit violates the NAP. And similarly, the answer to it is a definitive “no.” It is completely irrelevant whether someone created a positive material motivation for the thief, robber, or killer — the decision to commit aggressive violence was made by the perpetrator themselves. However, if someone threatened the executor with certain sanctions in case the theft/robbery/murder was not carried out, then, of course, both the client and the executor bear responsibility: one for the threat of action, and the second for the actions they took to avoid the threat.

Does this mean that a fence acquires legal rights to what they buy? No, they do not. That is precisely why they buy things at a massive discount: they obtain the item only in factual possession and factor into the price the risk that the previous owner will be found, to whom the item must be returned without any compensation.

So, if a service station owner buys a stolen car and dismantles it for parts to make it harder to find, will nothing happen to him? Something will. He will still be obligated to return the car to the owner, but due to the technical impossibility of doing so, he will have to negotiate compensation, which will clearly include a significant premium over the market price of the car.

Finally, I want to note that property claims are not always linked to a violation of the non-aggression principle. If you become a victim of fraud, the NAP has not been violated, but you still have a claim, and a court, given the evidence, has every reason to side with you. In effect, a fence, in relation to the legal owner, is precisely a fraudster: they deceive you by claiming they were unaware of the item’s status, and that they just desperately needed parts, so why not buy a practically new car for scrap.

So, while there is no violation of the NAP in this activity, it does not mean impunity.

Poll about post frequency

Сколько постов в сутки вам кажутся оптимальными для этого канала?
Results