Автор: Анкап-тян

What punishment could a hacker receive under ancap for their deeds? And a pentester, if they perform a hack to help, without warning the potential victim/person being saved?

ℛØ௶Ꭿℒ ℋᎯℭᏦℰℛ (question paid in the amount of 0.00119699btc)

Thank you for broadening my horizons, now I know what a pentester is))

Who is a hacker or a pentester from a legal point of view? They are a trespasser, that is, a violator of the boundaries of private property. Such a violation in itself does not yet cause damage to the property owner, but the owner has every right to oppose it.

At the same time, the owner’s arbitrariness in choosing means of opposition is limited. It is one thing to repel the break-in itself (I opened your gate and peeked inside, you glare at me fiercely, as if to say, “what are you staring at,” I close the gate, turn around and walk past), and another thing to pursue the person who carried out this break-in. You are no longer on your own territory, the intrusion is not currently happening, so what are your grounds for using violence?

Such grounds could only be a property claim. The right to shoot a real physical trespasser who has violated the boundaries of your private property arises only because you have strong reasons to assume a real threat to your property. And even then, in most cases, the court considers that such grounds arise only when the property boundary is clearly marked, a “Trespassers will be shot” sign is installed on the boundary, and the violator saw and ignored it.

Thus, even if, by putting in some effort, you managed to reliably determine the identity of the hacker who broke into a particular network resource of yours, you will not be able to legally demand any compensation from them until you explain exactly what damage was caused. At the same time, copying information, even if it is very dear to you, does not cause damage. Now, if, for example, the hacker caused a server malfunction and your online store did not work for two hours—that is already real damage, the size of which can be assessed. As for how property damage is handled under ancap, I have already described that extensively.

Obviously, few people will undertake to spend a vast amount of resources on searching for a hacker and bringing them to court; most, of course, will prefer passive defense, as it is ultimately cheaper. And here, pentesters with their profit motive are the first friends of business. By arranging penetration tests followed by detailed information security recommendations, they will cheaply provide owners of information resources with prevention of hacker attacks.

Of course, the market is unlikely to “solve” hackers completely; this will remain a niche for enthusiasts of exciting intellectual earnings for quite a while. But, having settled down, a hacker will, of course, move into more profitable sectors.

I want stickers for Telegram

Since the post suggesting that I use a donation to organize the Adam Smith Readings did not reach the threshold number of likes, it can be concluded that you would prefer me to spend your donations on something interesting for my channel. So, it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to create my own sticker pack. On one hand, this would please an indefinitely wide circle of people, and on the other, it would help increase the channel’s visibility among an audience that would otherwise be slightly harder to reach.

Let’s do this. In the comments to this post, leave ideas for stickers in roughly this format: the emoji the sticker will be linked to, some meme quote from one of my posts (optional), or any other meme phrase, a rough idea for the image, or even a link to a sketch. Ideas, of course, can and should be liked, commented on, and refined.

In addition to ideas, an artist will be needed. Organizing a full-scale sticker pack competition would be a bit too much for me, so let’s do this: draw one sticker so the style can be evaluated and post a link to the image in the comments. I will choose the author whose style I like (taking your likes into account, of course!), and we will discuss further details. As for the rates, I suggest guiding ourselves by 0.00100000 btc for the first sticker, and 0.00050000 btc for each subsequent one. Plus, of course, attribution for the sticker pack, if you so desire.

I kindly ask you to share this post widely to reach more potential contractors—it is in your own interest if we manage to find a truly great artist willing to take on the sticker pack.

Is vigilantism possible under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

This is also a fairly popular question; early answers can be found under the tag “court”, so it will be difficult to provide something new, but I will try.

Right here, I defined a court as a legal institution within which a conflict between parties is resolved by a third party, with the clarification that under ancap, a court can resolve conflicts only within the scope of the authority delegated to it by the parties to the conflict. I have also previously referred to the legal principle that no one can be a judge in their own cause.

Thus, formally, vigilantism is not a legal procedure, and the question could be closed on that basis, but the real world introduces its own corrections.

First, a person is fully entitled to exercise vigilantism upon themselves. They repented for some of their old actions and settled their accounts with life. Or decided to give ten bitcoins to charity. Or rewarded themselves with a couple of cocktails for meeting a deadline. This is vigilantism: the person evaluated their own actions, appointed the measure of retribution, and carried out the sentence themselves.

Second, in a conflict situation, one party may surrender themselves to the judgment of the other party. For example, I messed up, I surrender myself to your judgment, decide fairly how I should compensate for the damage. This could be an act of trust that strengthens further relations, an act of recklessness that lays the foundation for a future deep grievance, or a subtle manipulation designed to touch the other party and force them to forgive—it all depends on a multitude of circumstances, but in any case, such a deal also remains voluntary, and therefore legal, and this can also be called vigilantism.

Third, one of the parties to the conflict may decide to inflict some damage on the second party and be satisfied with that. I was overcharged at a restaurant, they were rude in response to a remark, I calmly walk outside, smash the display window, and leave. This is also vigilantism: the restaurant was sentenced by me to the destruction of its window. Is this a legal procedure? No. Is it possible under ancap? Yes. Will the conflict be exhausted after the application of this procedure? Quite possibly, if the passive party to the conflict, upon rational reflection, decides that to hell with it, it’s cheaper than going to court.

The broken windows theory in all its glory

In connection with the shooting, but not about shootings

As usual, after every shooting, a discussion about the regulation of gun control begins. Mikhail Pozharsky took an interesting approach. Generally being a supporter of the liberalization of such control, he points out that both those who demand a ban on weapons in connection with shootings and those who demand their liberalization are based on an illusion of control. Namely, statists are under the illusion that the state can effectively protect against shootings, and liberals are equally convinced that armed citizens can protect themselves effectively; meanwhile, effective protection against shootings does not exist, people are simply afraid to admit that their lives depend on chance. He then provides statistics.

I have already promised to refrain from formulas here, and similarly, I do not want to get bogged down in the analysis of those very statistics. There are a number of grievances regarding them; as an example, I will provide a link to a post by Vladimir Popov; more can be found, but I will not delve into the depths.

The factor that seems most important to me is practically impossible to measure with statistics, because it is psychology. I already mentioned this yesterday in the context of the fact that weapons are a powerful stimulus for the development of mutual politeness; therefore, an increase in the armament of schoolchildren will lead to them having to curb their enthusiasm for bullying and other teenage antics, and this will also affect the frequency of mass shootings. To this, Mikhail replied that he does not understand where the myth about the politeness of armed people came from. Take the States, for example—no particular politeness is observed there, “fuck” every other word.

Yes, let’s take the States. It is clear that referring to the extremely low number of murders in the Wild West is banal; one can always counter that such ancient data is irrelevant. Let’s take modern America, specifically African Americans—who, from the perspective of the average person, are all thugs with guns and complete contempt for the law.

What have these guys contributed to world culture? Rap battles! In Russia, the art of profanity is primarily the art of humiliating a completely powerless subordinate. The boatswain’s tirade, warrant officers, and so on. To a lesser extent, it is an undirected complaint about a hard life. There, however, it is precisely a dialogue between equals, in which the virtuosity of the insult is valued, and victory is awarded for exactly that; and if someone loses their temper and pulls out a gun during a battle, well, that is, excuse me, bad form.

This is simply another example for you that any armed community will inevitably develop its own means of conflict de-escalation, whereas a forcibly disarmed one is more likely to invent sophisticated ways to spite others from the shadows.

What is an acceptable reaction to a verbal insult for a libertarian (given that it is committed without the use of physical violence)? How can one influence the insulter so that they lose the desire to do so again?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

This is a very popular question that has been asked of me in various formulations more than once. Here is a recent answer about stepping on a foot. Here is another one, about ideological enmity. Here is one about psychological aggression. Here is one about the impossibility of getting away from an unpleasant neighbor. And here is one about stalking.

But, as one poet wrote—who, like all Soviet people, knew the ins and outs of the language of hatred—”the more times you see him, the more times you kill him!” So, I will take up your question and try to uncover the topic in a slightly new way.

As a starter, I suggest listening to Davud Zulumkhanov’s report at the seventh Adam Smith Readings in 2015 “On the Origin of Honesty”. There, he conveys a very important thesis:

An honest person cannot be insulted because he has no “honor”—that is a brigand’s term. Therefore, “insult” and “feeling insulted” are the weapons of brigands. Feeling insulted is a pretext for obtaining a “legal right to use violence.” An insult is a provocation of the other party to take actions that can be legally answered with violence.

Davud Zulumkhanov

So how can one influence the person insulting you so that they lose the desire to do it again? You can turn to Davud again and use his prescription:

A merchant cannot be insulted.

— You are a scoundrel, you are a villain, and your entire lineage were thieves!

And the merchant smiles and says:

— Yes, yes, but still, I won’t give it away for less than fifty.

Davud Zulumkhanov

However, it is unlikely that this advice fully answers your question, because such an answer does not guarantee that the brigand’s craving for insults will disappear. Perhaps you should respond in their own brigand language.

For example, Navalny accepted General Zolotov’s challenge in exact accordance with their brigand dueling code, choosing a weapon in which he was strong and the general was weak. The general backed out, and now, by the very laws of honor he himself appealed to, he was dishonored. Will his craving for violence disappear? Not necessarily. But the craving for insults—almost certainly.

Or, for instance, Kadyrov showed up before the Ingush elder Mukhazhir Nalgyev with a hundred people, claiming that the latter had made disrespectful remarks about him. But local residents began to gather to defend the elder, and what did this lead to? Kadyrov apologized and left. Kadyrov, unlike Zolotov, actually understands something about honor, which he demonstrated.

In the post about stepping on a foot, I described how the escalation of conflict occurs. If people had only escalation available among all conflict resolution tools, they would have run out very quickly. Well, you know all those tales that if you permit short-barreled firearms, these crazies will quickly shoot each other dead. But quite logical fears of such an outcome also lead to the development of such an important tool for de-escalating conflict as an apology.

Where is the highest probability of receiving an insult? Of course, on the internet. Because the internet is a gun-free zone. But go to a practical shooting competition, and there you will hear constant bowing and scraping: “esteemed shooter,” “esteemed judge.” Because everyone has a gun, plenty of ammo, and excitement—try not to be polite in such a case.

To summarize. Insults are countered by calmness, politeness, and firmness of position—that is, indicating, on one hand, your willingness to apologize if you have inadvertently offended someone, but on the other hand, your readiness to respond with force if the insulter does not apologize themselves. As for the prevention of insults, you will have to acquire a reputation as a person who is not worth insulting.

What arguments do Keynesians bring in favor of government regulation? They claim that the Austrian school cannot prove its theory. And how do they prove their own?

анонимный вопрос

The triumphant march of Keynesianism across the globe is based on simple trickery. The Great Depression was declared a failure of the free market, rather than a failure of state regulation, and a set of state regulation tools was proposed to counteract such phenomena. From the very beginning, Keynesian theory was criticized by the Austrian and neoclassical schools, and throughout the entire time it dominated, no convincing answers to this criticism were provided.

Why did the Keynesians defeat the Austrians? Because the governments themselves acted as the arbiters in the dispute over which economic policy governments should pursue. This violates the fundamental legal principle “No one should be a judge in their own cause,” and it is no surprise that governments with grim regularity preferred those teachings that offered to grant them more significant powers, rather than those that proposed, on the contrary, full deregulation of the economy.

Fortunately, in democratic countries, some feedback remains between the government and the voters, and when stagflation occurred in the seventies—directly contradicting Keynesian theory—the monetarists, with their less clumsy methods, took the place of the Keynesians in the courts of the sovereigns. Countries with dominant Marxism were not so lucky; there, Marx’s teaching was declared omnipotent by virtue of its correctness; in other words, the feedback between theory and reality was absent.

I had to make this historical excursion to make it clear immediately: the success of Keynesianism is based not on logical justifications of the theory’s correctness, but on the fact that its implementation brought direct benefits to those implementing it.

Now I will touch upon the Keynesian proofs directly: after all, even if factual considerations did not match the public justifications, the Keynesians still had to provide some justifications.

At the heart of any theory lies a certain model of reality. Keynes refused to consider models of interaction between agents and focused instead on models of relationships between abstract entities such as aggregate demand, aggregate supply, total employment, the general price level, gross product, the velocity of money, and so on.

Thus, the model of a crisis according to Keynes looks like a system with positive feedback: the lower the demand, the lower the production, the higher the unemployment, the lower the demand. Within the framework of such a simple model, everything is logically flawless. Keynes’s conclusion: the government must stimulate demand through public works, regardless of what they are—even digging holes and filling them back in—and this will allow an exit from the vicious circle. It is evident that such a theory is perfectly suited for propaganda purposes: first, you frighten them properly, and then you promise to save them if they buy your miracle cure for the problem.

In general, the resulting model is completely counterintuitive: a crisis is caused by the overproduction of goods (according to the AES, it is caused by the overproduction of money, and when there are many goods, that is actually great, which fully corresponds to the worldview of any average person); the chief evil in the economy is savings (according to the AES, it is precisely savings that allow for the implementation of increasingly indirect production chains, which ensures economic growth); the best way to fight crises is the destruction of savings and the squandering of resources. Why the implementation of such madness is a sure path to ruin at the level of an individual household, but somehow magically saves the economy once the state begins such a practice for the entire country at once, the Keynesians did not explain. There is a complete logical gap between micro- and macroeconomics for them; they are two entirely unrelated disciplines.

Modern Keynesianism has mutated greatly compared to the original theory, merged in ecstasy with monetarism, and formed a single mainstream current that continues to create increasingly sophisticated models for various areas of life. If Keynes began by promoting the very necessity of state regulation of the economy, now the necessity of state regulation is no longer questioned, and economists are having a field day, infinitely refining specific ways to do it in the most sophisticated manner. 

Freedom of speech and its limits

A call for murder, is that freedom of speech or not?
An insult, when I call someone “short” with the intention to “offend”…
1. …a person who is short,
2. … a person who is tall, is that freedom of speech?
If I engage in bullying using insults, is that freedom of speech?

Generally, is bullying a form of aggression? If one reads Svetov, for some reason he believes it is not.

анонимный вопрос

As usual, I will begin by briefly defining the terms. Aggression is the initiation of a conflict. Conflict is the presence of grievances. Aggressive violence is the initiation of a conflict through the use of violence. NAP is a legal principle according to which no one can be granted the right to unpunished aggressive violence. Freedom of speech is a legal principle according to which words do not constitute a violation of the NAP. Bullying is the public tearing apart of a tied-up animal by a pack of dogs (there are many other uses of the word “travlya,” but in the figurative sense when people “hunt” or bully other people, it refers specifically to this method of hunting/baiting). An insult is a manipulation intended to provoke the insulted person into escalating the conflict, preferably to the point of violating the NAP, in order to justify further, more serious sanctions against the insulted party.

If you agree with the proposed definitions, it should become quite obvious to you that the content of any words—be it slander, a call for murder, or even an order to commit murder—according to the principle of freedom of speech, does not violate the NAP. Nevertheless, words can easily be a form of aggression, albeit non-violent, since words can be used to initiate a conflict.

It is also easy to see that I have defined the concept of bullying vaguely, because it is not a legal term, but a purely polemical one. Nevertheless, it stems from the image of an amusement involving the tearing apart of an animal deprived of its freedom, and this is a fairly important point. As long as the object of your actions, carried out through verbal insults, can freely avoid the conflict simply by ending communication, I would not call it bullying—the factor of coercion is absent. In other words, I define bullying as systematic insults under conditions of coerced communication; that is, there is an element of aggressive violence in bullying, but not in the words, but specifically in the restriction of the freedom to leave the conflict zone.

Thus, verbal persecution in prison or in a conscript army is bullying. Similar persecution at work is not bullying, but simply a conflict. It can be ended by resigning. Persecution in school is bullying only if the persecuted person is forbidden from leaving the school.

An important point. Legal responsibility for bullying lies specifically with the one who restricts freedom, not with the one who bullies. That is, not with the dogs, but with the one who chained the bear to the post. This is exactly why responsibility for bullying in school lies with the parents, teachers, and the state: the state obliges parents to provide the child with a secondary education, teachers apply sanctions to the child for leaving school without permission, and parents deny the child the right to switch to homeschooling. Similarly, responsibility for bullying in prison lies with those who put the conflicting parties in one cell and locked them in, and for bullying in a conscript army—those who conscripted the conflicting parties into one military unit and forbade them from leaving it.

As for Svetov, he did indeed, in a conversation with Boris Kagarlitsky, get somewhat confused in the definitions of “aggression,” “violence,” “aggressive violence,” and “self-defense,” which his interlocutor caught him on, and as a result, the debate was lost. Therefore, the assumption that he was insufficiently strict with concepts in some other conversation does not seem improbable to me. Furthermore, the term “bullying” itself has no precise definition, so a specific phenomenon that someone calls bullying may either include aggressive violence or be pure non-violent aggression. Moreover, one party to a conflict may call the behavior of the other party bullying, even if it contains neither violence nor even aggression. For example, someone performs their job poorly, receives criticism regarding the actual deficiencies in response, and loses their bonus. Why would that not be a reason to position oneself as a victim of bullying?

A violation of the NAP is first and foremost not the dogs, but the chain.

And how is libertarianism in terms of sex?

анонимный вопрос

As is well known, economic theory does not provide quantitative predictions, so let us not guess exactly how many days you will be unable to walk; instead, let’s actually reflect on how libertarianism stands in terms of sex.

Sex between legally competent persons

Anything is permissible here, provided that voluntariness is observed. I will specifically note that voluntary consent can be withdrawn at any moment. If a penalty was provided for this by contract, then the penalty is paid. Post-coital disagreement is a legal nonsense; any sane court would tell you to get lost with such claims. A demand for a penalty for inadequate quality of services is permissible if such a possibility was agreed upon in advance.

If one of the subjects was bound by a contract with a third party, and the sex violates this contract, then the second subject, who did not enter into the contract, is not a party to the conflict and cannot be held liable. So stop pulling the hair of the vile home-wrecker and focus on the divorce from the husband.

The existence of a subordination relationship between subjects is not, by default, an obstacle to sex. Thus, if a department head promotes their sexual partner, or conversely, refuses a bonus nomination for refusing sex, that is the business owner’s problem.

Sex between non-legally competent persons

The participants of the act themselves remain legally uninvolved, just as a dog is not subject to trial for mating with someone’s bitch without permission while the owners were looking away. All possible claims regarding the excess are settled between the guardians. Moreover, the fact that one of the guardians disapproves of what happened while the second has nothing against it is irrelevant. Justified claims may arise only if this disapproval was known in advance and the guardian of the second party incited the ward to act. Otherwise, post-factum claims make no more sense than the post-coital disagreement of one of the participants of the act.

Sex between a legally competent and a non-legally competent person

A simple combination of considerations from the two previous sections applies here. Everything performed by mutual consent is permissible; a justified claim may arise only if the legally competent party was aware in advance of the guardian’s disagreement regarding sex with the ward.

Sex with an incapacitated person

Here, there is a firm presumption of disagreement. If consent is not expressed in an explicit form (for example, if the girl is dead drunk and asleep), it means there is no consent.

Don’t even think about it, kitty!

Readings of Adam Smith

I hope that you are already gradually preparing for the Adam Smith Readings, which will take place in Moscow on November 4. Not only is it the largest annual Russian libertarian conference, but this year is its anniversary; it is celebrating its tenth year and should be held at a particularly high level. So, if you have the opportunity, be sure to go; you won’t regret it. You will hear Ekaterina Schulmann, the best Russian popularizer of political science, Natalia Zubarevich, who knows and can talk about the situation in Russian regions magnificently, and Vera Kichanova, our answer to state-oriented urbanists. And a few other good guys)))

And while the Readings haven’t started yet, be sure to subscribe to the Readings YouTube channel, where you can find not only recordings of previous Readings, but also some other equally interesting presentations.

I want to recommend several recordings from there that personally made a great impression on me and seem very important.

First, of course, is Dmitry Butrin, “Non-Cooperative Games”, a report from the seventh Readings in 2015. A very refreshing cold shower for everyone involved in politics. It may cause some rejection, but try to digest it. Especially relevant for those preoccupied with party building.

Secondly, a webinar by Alexander Rakviashvili that is quite similar in message: “Libertarian Reforms: Why It Is So Difficult”. This is especially recommended for those who, in the survey on preferred methods of achieving ancap chose the political path.

And thirdly (three is a sacred number for Russia), for variety, I will mention the optimistic report by Sergey Seleev, “Garage Economy in the Russian Province”, delivered at the eighth Readings in 2016. Unfortunately, the recording quality is poor, and the presentation did not make it into the frame. You can consider this an allegory for ancap, which, under current conditions, generally looks quite unsightly.

I hope the proposed selection not only allowed you to look at the surrounding reality differently, but also tells you something about me.

In closing, I will mention that money is required to hold the Readings. As is easy to see, the donation wallet is currently not very full, with only 6 transactions totaling 0.01429703btc. I urge you to add more there, as far as possible.