Автор: Анкап-тян

How ethical is it for a libertarian to use welfare?

On one hand, it returns looted funds to the market, weakening the aggressor and provoking a crisis/default of social programs. On the other, isn’t this simply an ethical, beautiful justification to latch onto the budget teat?

Mesh Enok

Actually, in your question itself, you have already pointed out the main arguments “for” and “against” 😉 All that’s left for me is to expand on the reasoning a bit.

The goal of libertarians in politics (to the extent that it makes sense for libertarians to set political goals at all) is to bring about the collapse of the state redistribution system, and the use of any state benefits and subsidies contributes to achieving this goal, of course.

In what cases is such behavior not justified for a libertarian? In those where receiving some benefit from the state causes direct harm to specific people, and this harm would not have been caused if the libertarian had not claimed the benefit. For example, a libertarian applies to the social security department for a replacement for a dilapidated apartment; the city has no vacant apartments, but the mayor, for populist reasons, pressures a developer, and the developer allocates an apartment.

Well, in other words, the general ethical principle is as follows: taking what the state has already decided to give, and for which it has already taken resources from people, is halal; asking the state to take from another private individual and give to you is haram.

Can a libertarian, without violating their principles, campaign for an increase in social budget expenditures? Surprisingly, they can. If the issue at hand is not the overall volume of seizures from people, but the distribution of what has already been seized, then it is quite appropriate to lobby for an increase in social spending at the expense of reducing spending on the army, police, intelligence services, the maintenance of the state apparatus, and the “national economy.”

But, of course, it is very important that the libertarian be ready, at the first opportunity, to push away that very budget teat with relief and abolish it entirely. If, when the moment comes, they start hesitating and making excuses, it means they weren’t much of a libertarian all this time. Ultimately, convictions are tested by deeds, not rhetoric.

What will happen to electricity and housing and communal services in general under ancap?

Anonchik Oleg

Generally speaking, it is clear why electricity was chosen for this question. Although there are currently a vast number of producers of this type of energy on the market, the end consumer’s ability to choose a provider is usually quite limited. So limited, in fact, that we can safely consider as typical a situation where the consumer always deals with only one provider.

Are there any prerequisites for a different arrangement to become the norm under ancap? Generally, no, since the current state of affairs is caused not by government regulation, but by the characteristics of the market. However, today the state, at least in Russia, regulates prices in this market, and the natural question arises: will they skyrocket if they are completely deregulated?

The norm where electricity is primarily produced by a large producer is linked to the fact that there is a pronounced positive economy of scale in this industry: a large producer has lower production costs. The norm where the end consumer is usually connected to only one power grid also has a quite understandable origin. What, then, will limit the greed of the electricity producer, as well as the greed of the grid owner?

The most obvious market constraint on the retail price of such centrally supplied electricity is, of course, home generation. The higher the retail price in the grid, the more profitable decentralized energy production becomes, whether it be solar panels, wind turbines on the roof, or simply a banal gas boiler in the basement.

Does it turn out that large producers together with power grids in a free market can inflate the price almost to the level of the cost of private generation? Generally, no, and here is why.

The thing is, the positive economy of scale works for large producers only if a large amount of electricity is produced. If a power plant is large but operates at 5% capacity, then the production cost, considering equipment depreciation, ends up being much higher than if the generation parameters were close to optimal. Therefore, the electricity producer is interested in selling all the energy that they are technically capable of producing. Moreover, artificially lowering generation opens up a field for potential competitors.

And so it happens that without any tariff commissions or other remnants of state planning, in a developed free electricity market, the producer’s margin drops to average market values for business in general, meaning roughly to the average bank deposit rate.

And this is without me even considering exotics like large-scale solar or wind generation, where the price of energy fluctuates depending on the weather, and on sunny or windy days producers might even pay consumers just to burn off the excess electricity produced—precisely such excesses will eventually be solved by developing energy storage technologies.

May I not examine all other types of utility services in such detail? I assure you, the same patterns apply there, with their own peculiarities, but leading just as surely to quite reasonable limits on tariffs.

So, shall we burn?

Is the use of violence by ancaps against representatives of law enforcement agencies, such as the police or army, who are violently enforcing the state and its laws, aggressive or nonetheless defensive?

анонимный вопрос

To be honest, such questions feel somewhat dogmatic to me. It’s as if someone started pestering an imam, for example: “Is the killing of infidels a defensive jihad—or an offensive one?”

Well, in the name of the great and merciful Market, I shall begin!

Since the state is a system of institutionalized violence against private property, then, of course, any person who is a subject of any given state has grounds to present property claims against that state. Since no state not only refuses to consider the possibility of restitution for property forcibly seized from people, but also applies sanctions for the very act of contesting such seizure, it must be concluded that an open conflict exists between the state and the individual, which is essentially a euphemism for the term “war.” In our case, it is a form of guerrilla warfare.

Thus, the question of how appropriate it is for an individual to use violence against certain state employees is merely a question of the laws and customs of war, as well as a question of tactics and strategy.

I remind you that the primary element in this war is the existence of property claims the individual has against the state, arising from the state’s forced seizures of the individual’s private property and the restriction of their freedom. Therefore, victory in the war is brought closer by reducing the rate of seizures and restrictions, reducing the share of state property in total wealth, and reducing the number of civil servants and other persons supported by the state.

So, can you beat up cops after all—or not? Theoretically—you can. Practically—there is usually no point. Privatizing something state-owned or securing a tax deduction is far more useful. Achieving a reduction in tax rates is an extremely noble cause indeed. But killing a state employee is simply killing a human being. It is permissible if they are carrying out a direct attack dangerous to your life, but it will in no way diminish the state, reduce taxes, or weaken regulations. On the contrary, it more often leads to a tightening of the screws and personal bitterness toward you from the deceased’s previously indifferent colleagues. So, this offensive jihad is not the duty of a libertarian.

Now, the widespread looting of state property kills the state quickly and reliably, even one as powerful and creepy as the late USSR. Widespread sabotage of taxes and regulations does the same. It is this defensive jihad that is more pleasing to the Market.

May the Market guide you on the straight path and be favorable to you. Amen!

The omnipotent Market knows best!

Can the free town of Christiania be considered an anarcho-capitalist community, even if only in its infancy?

анонимный вопрос

The more I read about Christiania, the more parallels I find with Elausestere—a group of islands on the outskirts of the Tuamotu Archipelago where, according to the Meganesian Cycle by Alexander Rozov—a piece of sci-fi popular among Russian libertarians—a communist enclave existed within a minarchist confederation.

A group of people homesteads unclaimed property, organizes self-governance, establishes its own exotic order, and then the outside world eventually notices this commune, and its first impulse is obvious: to bring it to a common denominator. It quickly becomes clear that this is, first, difficult; second, disapproved of by local residents; third, not approved by all other citizens; and finally, that profit can be derived from this attraction.

Next come the negotiations, a partial adaptation of the enclave to external rules of the game—and that’s it, it lives freely and happily in symbiosis with its surroundings.

What is more prevalent in today’s Christiania—anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, or is it simply something like a Chinatown, only formed not by cultural-ethnic, but simply by cultural traits? From the state’s point of view—definitely the third. An anarcho-capitalist will see primarily ancap traits in Christiania. I think an ancom will see primarily ancom traits.

Well, it’s wonderful that Christiania managed to please everyone and allow each person to see something of their own in it!

I’ve made a note for myself: when I travel around Europe, I’ll stop by Christiania.

For weed, against heroin; for bicycles, against cars. Moderation itself!

Why not sell libertarianism through the idea of the absence of state regulation, especially when there is the example of the flourishing of entrepreneurship in 1998-1999, when they left business alone and let it develop?

анонимный вопрос

This question was clearly inspired by my post “to whom and how to sell libertarianism?“, and is an invitation to develop the topic.

But the example you chose was not very successful. In 1998-1999, there was no conscious deregulation; the state simply defaulted on its credit obligations, which led to it stopping borrowing for quite some time. Investors, no longer having such a tempting option as investing in government securities, began to invest more actively in the real sector. Moreover, the financial crisis sharply lowered the cost of assets, and the fall of the ruble lowered the cost of labor. In general, in full accordance with the Austrian theory of the economic cycle, recovery after a crash happens quickly if one does not interfere with the process, which is what happened—not because the government was so wise, but because it was bewildered and did not know where to start.

So the example you proposed is more about the fact that state non-interference in the economy during a crisis has a very beneficial effect on the economy. Even to illustrate that state non-interference in the economy has a beneficial effect on it in general at any moment, additional examples are needed, and better yet—logical arguments. Although, of course, people love history precisely because it is a set of instructive tales for any life situation, so do not hesitate to provide historical examples if you see that they are in demand with the audience. You won’t prove anything with them, but you certainly can sell an ideology.

After all, for people, 1998 is more associated with something like this, rather than with the liberation of business…

How will the transition to ancap be carried out in general, and in Russia in particular?

анонимный вопрос

In the post about ancap and minarchism, I described two possible ways of building ancap: the political and the countercultural. The political approach boils down to reforming the state into a minarchist state, and then further reducing it through political means up to its full formal dissolution. The countercultural approach boils down to a factual refusal to use the state, and especially a refusal to provide it with any resources whatsoever, from money to brains.

In a poll on the most promising method, my readers preferred the political method, although a significant number of votes went to the view that one should first achieve the maximum possible through political means, and then use the countercultural method to finish off the weakened state mechanism.

Personally, it seems to me that there will be more and more ancap in our lives as people learn to hide their income from the state more effectively and grow wealthy faster than they are plundered. A poor person may still hope that the state will rob the rich and give it to them. A wealthy person only needs to be left alone; they will figure it out themselves.

It is very important that working for the state be humiliating and serve as a demonstration of incompetence, while working for a private individual signifies both respect and prosperity. For this, it is important that entrepreneurs and their employees realize the unity of their interests: the less the state gets in the way, the more those who work will get. And this is achieved only through the widespread penetration of ideas.

The temptation of the political path is that a politician can lead society to their desired result almost by force, whereas the method of cultural transformation assumes a broad acceptance of libertarian ideas by society. It is also important to understand that any failure of libertarian political reforms hits the image of the ideology (look what those damned liberalasts have brought the country to!), and any success is easily converted by the state into its own strengthening (you’ve grown rich—now share!). Meanwhile, public sentiment cannot be uprooted so easily, which is why the path to approximating ancap through it is much more reliable.

This is the kind of tax collection graph we need

You’ve started saying quite often that you’re repeating yourself. In that case, I wonder: are there any topics left for which you don’t know the answer? Or are this site and channel an attempt to find one?

анонимный вопрос

I liked this question, so I’m answering it out of turn; my apologies to everyone who had to be pushed back.

Of course, there is an entire class of questions to which I do not know the answer: predicting the future.

As long as the question is “how will such-and-such type of human relationship look under ancap,” it can be answered. When the question looks like something such as “when will ancap happen in Russia?”, I fall into a stupor, because theory does not answer this; one can only guess. Whoever predicts the future best is the most clever entrepreneur, for he derives profit specifically from the uncertainty of the future.

There is also a huge number of questions to which I do not know the answer, but can find it if the question is asked. For example, “how do you comment on economist A’s statement regarding politician B’s program?” I would need to find out who A is, what he said about B, what that program is, and only then would it become clear how I can comment on it.

The same applies to questions concerning the intricacies of theory, for example, “economist C has developed a model that refutes the law of diminishing marginal utility—checkmate, Austrians!” I would have to find out what the model is and for which specific cases it works before I can formulate how the Austrians escape the check. Or I might not be able to do it; after all, this is a science, not theology, and it cannot give guarantees of a correct explanation for absolutely everything. For instance, spears are still being broken over whether Bitcoin satisfies Mises’ regression theorem or not.

And finally: no, this site and channel are not an attempt to find unanswered questions. It is an attempt to interest the general public in the topic of libertarianism and to make them realize how simple all this is, in general.

— Bitcoin has no commodity value, defend yourself, sir!
— It is in the blockchain, sir!

Under ancap, it is unlikely that all countries will instantly become single-story, so the question is about collective property.

Specifically regarding apartment buildings: what can be done in a future libertarian Russia with lunatics who keep rabid dogs in their apartments, bring trash from the landfill, drill every day, etc.?

анонимный вопрос

I have already answered a practically identical question, but since we have returned to this topic, I will now approach it from a slightly different angle.

In a recent post on monopolies, I mentioned that in a free market there are both factors contributing to the growth of companies and factors contributing to their fragmentation. The inconveniences that individual apartment owners face when attempting to jointly manage an apartment building clearly tell us that in this area, the tendency toward the growth of companies will be stronger in a free market. And indeed, it is more convenient for one developer to build an apartment building, for one legal entity to manage it, and so on. So, as the initial non-market Russian distribution of property (where every apartment has its own owner) is smoothed out, we will more and more often arrive at a situation where apartments are owned by a landlord and rented out by them.

Thus, the boundaries of acceptable behavior when using the apartments will be determined primarily by the owner, not the tenant, and for a quiet, decent resident, this is certainly convenient: you inform the owner that the neighbor is going crazy and has filled the apartment with some stinking junk, and the owner will set things right.

Now, in the event that the neighbor bothering you is actually the owner of their apartment, we fall within the framework of the usual problem of negative externalities: filing a claim, negotiations, threats, court, compensation. Moreover, again, if you are not the owner but a tenant, the problem is solved more easily, since it is easier to determine the amount of damage. You declare your willingness to move out if your landlord does not resolve the problem with the neighbor, and the landlord then presents claims to the neighbor, based on the amount of rent they risk losing, and this is a much more reliable basis for legal proceedings than other methods of assessing damage.

The moral. Housing maintenance is also a business, and no one promised that doing business is easy. But there are ways to make your life easier; after all, it’s the market.

Libertarian Handbook

Today in the chat, I was asked to pin a post with a list of various useful links, and, naturally, this led to a discussion about possible implementations of some kind of libertarian directory, where someone just starting to familiarize themselves with the topic could dive in and immediately get a general idea of the subject, and then delve deeper in any direction that seems interesting.

So I became curious about what form such a directory would seem most convenient to you.

Либертарианский справочник. В какой форме вы бы предпочли им пользоваться?
  • Add your answer
Results

Предполагается, что справочник содержит ответы на популярные вопросы, сгруппированные по темам, ссылки на литературу, сгруппированные по темам и степени сложности, ссылки на либертарианские ресурсы, где публикуются новые материалы или ведётся обсуждение.

With a free market, there will be cheap courts too, and then will the phrase “to hell with it, it’s cheaper than suing” not work?

Clarifying question regarding the post about vigilantism under ancap

I mentioned an example where a person resorts to vigilantism: relatively small damage was caused to them, the other party refused to compensate immediately, and instead of seeking formal compensation, the person simply causes proportional damage, and the opposing party accepts this, believing it would be cheaper than going to court. You object: that in a free competitive market, it will always be possible to find a reasonably affordable court, meaning the argument that swallowing the offense is cheaper than litigating will prove invalid.

In the case of a restaurant display window that I broke, it is true that the restaurant manager requires minimal effort: one call to the insurance company. Then an insurance agent arrives, records the damage, reviews the camera footage, processes the insurance payout, and then searches for me via the video recording and files a lawsuit, while the restaurant is seemingly no longer involved.

The problem is that while I will, of course, pay the insurance claim without question, I will subsequently create such a stink about the restaurant that they will regret it. These people dared not accept the verdict of my court, meaning they still believe they were right to overcharge and be rude to me; well, that is a very compelling reason to trample their reputation. They have nowhere to run—it is a stationary establishment where visitors go to spend time comfortably, and there are countless ways to ensure the restaurant’s clients experience discomfort. And the restaurant management does not want such problems, so if they can calculate such situations even one step ahead, they would prefer to replace the glass at their own expense without contacting insurance and apply sanctions to the waiter who was rude to me.

That is how my broken windows theory turned out.