(now this is called an easement, i.e., the owner of private land is required by law to provide passage/access through their property for transit traffic, the installation of water pipes, sewage, access to water, etc.)
Personally, I think there will be an analogue of the concept of neutral (international) waters in maritime law for land transit, but how will they decide which part of the land can be considered an easement?
It is quite easy to imagine how, under conditions of the absolutization of private property rights to land, some landowner demands absolute inviolability of the land, refusing to enter into any negotiations. A person has the right to misanthropy as long as they are willing to pay for it and do not encroach on someone else’s property.
However, it is very difficult to imagine that commercial companies, especially those with multiple owners, would adhere to such misanthropy. As a rule, the goal of a company is to make a profit, not dominance and self-assertion. So, if there is a demand for the installation of utilities across a company’s territory, whether it be a cable or a path, this will generally be perceived as an opportunity to profit by meeting that demand.
Under ancap, any voluntary transactions are legitimate; as for forced ones, they can also easily occur, but apologies and compensation are assumed for them by default.
David Friedman, in “The Machinery of Freedom,” gives as an example of completely justified behavior a lost traveler who breaks into someone’s empty house to make a phone call and call for help, but upon leaving, leaves cash in the house in an amount sufficient to compensate for the inconvenience caused.
But we don’t need to go that far when we have our own taiga nearby. Any winter hut in the taiga is private property, but the doors are not locked, and there is always a certain supply of firewood, grains, and other equipment stored there. Any random passerby can spend the night in a winter hut, and before leaving, they replenish the supplies for the next visitor. This is the established spontaneous order. No one specifically engages in enforcing its observance; these rules of courtesy simply help people live. A society that does not develop such orders is less successful.
Warm, sated, and spontaneous order
Similarly, in Rome, the very concept of easement was invented without any state, within the framework of private law, and there are no grounds to believe that a stateless society of the future would be less sensible than a stateless society of the past.
Thus, under ancap, in sparsely populated areas, the needs of people regarding transit territories will be guarded by a conceptual “bear prosecutor” who upholds the “law of the taiga,” and in densely populated areas—by the desire to obtain market benefit from providing transit through one’s territory. As for the plots of the few misanthropes, who, although they will inevitably be encountered like any other rude people, in the vast majority of cases can be bypassed via some alternative routes.
Today I received another question accompanied by a fairly large donation of 0.01btc. I decided not to stress over which one to answer today and which tomorrow, and instead address both in one day.
And since this is the first time a donation wasn’t anonymous, it’s a great opportunity to express separate gratitude in graphic form.
How does a human neighbor differ from other annoying factors, such as a thunderstorm, a highway under the windows, flying planes, barking dogs, and so on? Only in that you can try to reach an agreement with them, whereas the most realistic way to avoid the other annoying factors is soundproofing.
But the neighbor, in turn, also understands that by coming to them and demanding that the noise stop, you are demonstrating double standards, because if you had actively protected yourself from the noise of the other sources mentioned above, then the noise from behind the wall would not bother you, as its level would be below the threshold.
Thus, after hearing your requests regarding reducing the volume level, they will expect a deal. The subject of the deal may turn out to be the most unexpected thing.
You can state that since they are celebrating so wildly that it’s impossible to sleep, they should pour you a drink as well—and join the party.
You can ask when the banquet is expected to end, and, having received an answer, declare that you are willing to tolerate it until then, but if they continue after that, they should be prepared for the harshest sanctions, from “I’ll shit under your door” to “I’ll smash the door with an axe.”
You can agree on monetary compensation, enough to spend the night in a quiet hotel nearby…
In general, there are plenty of options.
But, of course, you may also fail to reach an agreement. This will mean that you and your neighbor were unlucky with each other: you had a grievance, you initiated a conflict, the conflict was not resolved, and escalation is possible in the future, which entails costs for both parties. And no daddy-mommy-state will help; you are adults now, it’s time to learn how to negotiate on your own.
Right now I have 14 unanswered questions for the next two weeks, and I hope that interest in the project will only grow. In this regard, I wanted to ask for your opinion on the most appropriate way to handle such a situation.
Как уместнее поступить, если вопросы начинают накапливаться?
A similar question was asked of me three years ago, and at that time I wrote a whole essay on the subject titled “Why Altai Succeeded.” Now, without overthinking it, I am simply publishing it with minimal edits.
Why Altai Succeeded
The Gorno-Altai Autonomous Region is a small, sparsely populated peripheral territory of Southern Siberia on the border with Mongolia. There are no railways, almost no industry; there are mineral resources, but they are expensive to export due to a lack of infrastructure. It is inhabited predominantly by livestock breeders who are united into kolkhozes purely formally. It possesses significant tourism potential, which was practically unused by the socialist planned economy.
In the summer of 1990, talk of sovereignty began in the autonomous region. The leadership planned to demand a status upgrade to an autonomous republic, but instead, announcements began to appear—first in Gorno-Altaysk and Mayma, a few days later in all other district centers, and then everywhere. They hung on poles, on the doors of shops, post offices, and savings banks, or were simply pasted onto gates. The first print run was produced at the regional newspaper’s printing house, and thereafter it became a grassroots effort: some used typewriters, some wrote by hand. The text was as follows:
Comrades!
The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade N.S. Khrushchev, promised Soviet citizens the construction of communism by 1980. Unfortunately, he was removed from office by a handful of party officials who preferred to develop the socialist system instead of building communism. But the laws of dialectical materialism cannot be cheated! And so, ten years after the promised deadline, Altai has finally built communism.
According to the teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin, the state is an instrument of class oppression. A communist society is classless; therefore, the state on the territory of Altai has henceforth naturally ceased to exist. The Communist Party, which served as the vanguard of the builders of communism, no longer persists as a structure separate from the rest of the people upon the achievement of communism. The task of the Communist Party is accomplished!
The basic principle of communism is: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Therefore, the inhabitants of communist Altai shall henceforth freely exchange any goods and services, valuing them only and exclusively according to their own needs. The amount of labor invested, which served as the socialist measure of a commodity’s value, is now disregarded. Concepts of added value, price zones, central planning, and the like are henceforth considered obsolete and possessing only historical value. Since states that use money as a measure of value still exist in the rest of the world, the inhabitants of Altai may also freely use the currencies of any states in their settlements according to their own needs, alongside any other values.
In their relations with one another, the inhabitants of Altai shall henceforth be guided by only two principles: mutual respect and communist consciousness. The first means that in their actions, residents take into account the interests of their neighbors and other involved parties, cementing their decisions with agreements. The second means that residents consider not only immediate needs but also care about what they will leave behind for their grateful descendants.
All conflicts are settled amicably by the residents involved in the conflict, according to the principles of mutual respect and communist consciousness. They may also turn to any other persons or organizations for judgment, pledging to carry out the decision rendered by them.
All property remaining to the inhabitants of Altai from the times of the socialist system, both personal and state-owned, continues to remain under the management of the same persons who managed it under socialism. Mechanisms for changing the managing persons are developed by the residents independently for each specific case, based on the principles of mutual respect and communist consciousness.
In relations with citizens of other states, the inhabitants of Altai are guided by the same principles as in their relations with each other. Any person is free to come to Altai for recreation, for settlement, or to engage in various activities. As long as they observe our principles, they are our welcome guest.
The inhabitants of Altai consider wars to be a remnant of a bleak past; therefore, they respect the borders of states and have no intention of seizing their territory by force. When traveling outside Altai, the inhabitants of Altai are guided not only by the principles of mutual respect and communist consciousness but also comply with the other requirements of those states.
The inhabitants of Altai will not tolerate attempts to turn history backward; therefore, they will oppose any attempts to revive a class society and a state on the territory of Altai. A sign of a class society is the distinction of any groups for whom different rules apply than for others. Signs of a state are: the forced seizure of valuables, the coercion of people to work, the restriction of freedom of action, and other violent actions carried out otherwise than as compensation for specific calculated damage.
It is clear that the stated principles differed greatly from the trends of recent years, and scholars of Marx’s works might find many of the introduced definitions quite debatable. But, first, the main, well-known communist principles were explicitly stated in this manifesto. Second, anyone who had read science fiction could easily recognize the bright communist future in these principles, and nothing else. But the most important psychological factor was that the manifesto declared victory. While the rest of the USSR was contemplating admitting defeat in the competition with capitalism, and reading “Dunno on the Moon”—where it was assumed that man is a wolf to man—as a visual aid for building a new order, the majority in Altai understood perfectly well what kind of system they had established and how to behave within it.
According to the manifesto, all functionaries of the national economy fully retained their positions; only party workers were left completely without roles. Attempts to assert their rights led to them being reminded: “You bitches removed Khrushchev!”. And, frankly speaking, the CPSU aktiv was not that large in a territory with a population of fewer than two hundred thousand. In any case, some party workers left for Russia; no one placed obstacles in their way.
Russia took a pause; the union leadership found itself in a predicament. Had this been a matter of militant nationalism, with the oppression of Russians and other excesses, they might have considered deploying troops. But to forcibly return those who had already moved to a new stage of development back to socialism? That would mean the collapse of the entire ideology. Keeping such a thing secret would have been impossible; glasnost had long been triumphantly sweeping across the USSR. It ended with Gorbachev officially announcing in October 1990 that an experiment on the transition to communism within a single region had begun on the territory of the Gorno-Altai Autonomous Region.
Already the following year, as everything in the USSR began to shake and the first foreign investors arrived in Altai—several hotel chains and one agro-industrial holding—a mass exodus of Soviet cooperators, currency traders, and other sufficiently wealthy citizens to Altai began. They discovered that both they, their money, and their initiative were welcome here.
At first, Soviet rubles were mainly used in Altai, then they predominantly switched to the US dollar and the Swiss franc. No one saw the need to conduct their own currency policy.
The few asphalted roads did not have time to fall into complete neglect during the transition period. Road services initially scraped by on small orders for asphalt paving inside villages or repairing bridges over mountain rivers, but gradually larger investors stepped in, and orders became overwhelming. In 1991, road workers set up a post at the entrance from Russia and began charging transport traveling to Mongolia. This was enough to maintain the Chuysky Trakt in a satisfactory condition. Gradually, a sufficient number of services emerged, each grabbing various road sections for maintenance and profit. Over time, the fee-collection mechanisms evolved toward greater user convenience—as is customary, in accordance with the principles of communist consciousness and mutual respect. Also, strangely enough, the total absence of any bodies designed to establish traffic rules and monitor their compliance did not particularly affect the accident rate.
Small aviation continued to operate between district centers, as well as to Biysk and Barnaul. By the time small aviation in Russia began to wither away, the Japanese had already started building an international airport in Gorno-Altaysk.
Private clinics first began to appear at hotels and sanatoriums; over time, solvent demand emerged in district centers as well. The rescue service began moonlighting by transporting patients from remote villages to district hospitals. In some cases, these were one-off orders, in others, subscription service agreements with residents, and in some, insurance companies managed to hustle in.
The level of education naturally dipped at first. Former school teachers worked with individual students on specific subjects, spending the rest of their time in their own gardens. Gradually, it became clearer what kind of specialists the communist economy needed, and the process began; in some places, it remained at the level of tutoring, while in Gorno-Altaysk and Ulagan, one secondary school each opened. Mainly, teachers gathered mixed-age groups and gave an intensive course of one or two subjects over a couple of months. The academic load remained laughable compared to the Soviet past, so children were more involved in household chores and found a full source of income quite early. On the other hand, it became common to voluntarily study specific areas of knowledge at a more mature age, when a person knew exactly what they needed and was ready to pay for it.
In the early nineties, excesses occurred when gangs from Russia arrived in jeeps, stealing cars, household appliances, and money. These issues were resolved in different ways. One could obtain contacts for a rival gang and lead them to the gang returning with the loot. One could organize armed resistance, as there were no restrictions on carrying weapons in Altai. One could provide leads to the Russian cops. In Mayma, which naturally suffered from raids more than others, a private security organization existed for a time—it was founded by Biysk gangsters who had been pushed out of the station market by competitors. Gradually, the opinion formed in the criminal circles of the Altai Krai that it was “beneath them” to act lawlessly toward the communists. They went there for cultured recreation, and sometimes for arbitration—the communist consciousness of their southern neighbors could be trusted.
In ninety-eight, Belokurikha joined communist (the de facto anarcho-capitalist system thus retained its original ideologized name de jure) Altai. In the RF, there was a default, a carousel of changing prime ministers, salary delays—while Altai investors offered good money in hard currency for the state property in the purchased Belokurikha. In the early two-thousands, the RF unilaterally carried out the demarcation of the border, established customs checkpoints and other strange attributes that states love so much. In 2014, Zhirinovsky suggested considering that Belokurikha and Northern Kazakhstan, along with Novorossiya, are ancestral Russian lands, but Zyuganov pulled him back, telling him not to dare sharpen his teeth on communists, and that in general, we could actually learn something from our southern neighbors rather than intruding upon them with our volunteers.
In 2006, there was an attempt to officially register the state of the Communist Republic of Altai—with the goal of joining the UN, WTO, and providing offshore services. However, the next day, the applicant’s entire fence was plastered with the communist manifesto, and he, after sober reflection, decided that things were fine as they were. He did not attempt to prove to his neighbors that his idea implied neither taxation nor other signs of a state mentioned in the manifesto, and he dropped his initiative. This communist inflexibility of the Altai people meant that no international company could keep its headquarters in Altai, as it was required to have a state registration, but this did not hinder real operational activity.
For trips around the world, the inhabitants of Altai initially used primarily Russian passports, which they obtained in Russian Biysk, but after the 2008 Georgian war, citizenship of the Baltic states and Israel became fashionable, and from 2010, Mongolia introduced a simplified procedure for the inhabitants of Altai, thereby fully satisfying the market demand.
Altai became a refuge for Edward Snowden, but this was not his most successful idea. NSA representatives, not hiding themselves particularly, flew to Gorno-Altaysk and captured the fugitive sysadmin, after which they departed for the RF and then to Washington. The Altai people did not obstruct the detention, but, first, they began to refuse US dollars en masse, gradually switching to Swiss francs for cash and bitcoins for cashless settlements, and second, in 2014, a veterans’ club opened near Onguday—something like a base for free mercenaries from all over the world—and when in 2017 the Russian FSB tried to capture Arkady Babchenko, who had fled to Altai, its employees were met with a rather unkind reception. However, it was managed without casualties or international scandals.
In 2020, the Manifiesto Comunista spread to Cuba, but that is a completely different story…
Our helicopter, fly ahead, the stop is at the commune!
The task is indeed quite non-trivial, and here is why.
Capitalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are commodity-money relations. Anarcho-capitalism makes the boundary conditions stricter, specifying that the dominant commodity-money relations must also be voluntary.
Communism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are gift relations, and reputation takes the place of money.
It is easy to see that family is communism, and usually, there is no scent of anarcho-capitalism there. Meanwhile, the task is to tell the children in the family about the values of ancap, and make it so that these values appear attractive to them.
The problem is not even just in telling them, but in the fact that in childhood, the instructions that are reinforced by personal example and are applicable to real life here and now are absorbed best.
It is worth starting with the most basic things.
Property. Indicate that this thing belongs to mom, this to dad, this to the child, and these are in the joint property of the whole family (just don’t use that terrible communist word “common”)
Exchange. Exchanging values is a quite exciting activity for children, and here it is important not only to instill a taste for exchange in the child, but also to explain that exchange must be only voluntary, and that exchange is always unequal: everyone values what they give away less than what they acquire. So if one exchanged something and then changed their mind, the second is not obliged to agree to a reverse exchange.
Contract. Get them used to, if not writing down, at least clearly articulating the terms of exchange; do not hesitate to refer to old contracts, and do not dare to go back on your own word.
Court. If you cannot reach an agreement with the child, look for someone who can arbitrate for you, provided the child also agrees to the adjudication. Let them get used to defending their position before an independent party, and then executing the verdict.
Money. The sooner a child gets their own money, the better. Do not hesitate to hire them for any work you want to get from them. But if they refuse the work, do not dare to compel them. Let them get used to saying the phrase “and what will I get out of this?”
Reputation. Avoid inducing shame in the child; it is far more important to make them understand that their reputation in such-and-such a field looks poor, and now they are not trusted in this, but in this other area, they can be fully trusted.
Compensation for costs. Again, instead of shaming, suggest they think about how they could compensate for the damage. It is useful to haggle, not agreeing to the very first offer. If you yourself have somehow betrayed their trust, also boldly offer compensation, and let them decide whether to accept the offer.
Self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense. Here, you may have to conflict with other adults who maintain the view that a child fundamentally has no right to fight, and can at most complain to adults. Do not hesitate to arrange a full judicial proceeding following such incidents, naturally, on a voluntary basis. If the court then decides that your child did indeed cause unlawful damage to someone, you must ensure that they pay compensation.
In general, try to start treating the child as an equal subject as early as possible. They may lack knowledge or skills, but this does not deprive them of their rights. Knowledge and skills are things that can be acquired.
A mediocre example of a contract: the service provided is not defined, and there are no termination conditions. But even such a contract is far better than its absence.
Here, I really want to start with an extended quote from a source I constantly refer to—our Political Science-chan, Ekaterina Schulmann:
As for the actual state of affairs, generally speaking, the Russian person is a spontaneous libertarian, but does not know it and would never call themselves such. In reality, they are very inclined toward libertarian values, namely: they do not trust the state, state institutions, or law enforcement agencies. In general, they trust no one except personal acquaintances. They tend to rely only on themselves and their closest relatives. Accordingly, they would like it if no one messed with them, if they were left in peace and not told how to live. In other words, these libertarian values are very strong in Russian people.
At the same time, the opposite view is entirely justified: Russia is a country of ingrained social-democratic values, and the ideal state for the majority of Russians is the Scandinavian countries, with low levels of inequality, comfortable prisons, officials on bicycles, and broad public discussion of all issues—in short, a proper Soviet government as it should be, according to the project documentation. The high taxes and strict regulations attached to this model are perceived as a fully justified price for this paternalistic paradise.
And finally, it would be strange not to mention the viewpoint that the Russian person is a sucker and a doormat, burdened by Stockholm syndrome and learned helplessness. Their motto is “initiative is punishable”, and not “punishable by being ordered to implement the initiative”, as in the ideal Confucian China, but literally punishable by a blow to the head so that they don’t stick their neck out. They harbor no illusions about the benevolence of state power, but justify the actions of officials by believing that they themselves would behave the same way in their place.
The first category—these are our natural allies. They might not provide active support because they are busy with their own peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs, but at the very least, at the right moment, they will look away and not snitch on people for their peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs.
The second category—these are our natural allies. They understand the importance of jointly solving local problems, the ability to negotiate, and the desire to unite around common interests, rather than simply on the principle of “us versus them.”
The third category—these are our natural allies. Gradually, it dawns on them that an official is not some inexorable force, omnipotent and omniscient. An official is a ridiculous idiot who doesn’t dare take a step without instructions, yet treats orders according to the principles of “wait to execute—they’ll cancel it” and “if you can shift the responsibility—shift it.” Finally, these people realize that an official immediately loses all their superior arrogance when facing a crowd one-on-one. And then officials can be peacefully pelted with snowballs, as in Volokolamsk, or subjected to “garbage lustrations,” as in Ukraine, but if things get really heated, it can even lead to defenestrations, which our Slavic brothers in the Czech Republic loved to use.
mm, lustrations!
Of course, sometimes with allies like these, you don’t even need enemies. Of course, such allies are too easily lured by communist slogans, and then they will go beat up the liberalists and the bourgeois. Therefore, as unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to perform the important work of creating the correct image of the enemy in these people’s heads. This is precisely why Mikhail Svetov, with his propaganda of hatred toward the nomenklatura, is also doing important work; I couldn’t do it, I find it much more pleasant to tell various optimistic tales about how we can organize ourselves.
Many people say that they came to libertarianism imperceptibly; simply one fine day, their more erudite acquaintances informed them that the set of views they were projecting is called libertarianism.
It happened a bit strangely for me. I knew the word itself, but I interpreted it purely phenomenologically—that libertarians are supporters of removing the state from the economy and the private lives of citizens. Then, I mentioned to a friend that I was a libertarian; she heard an unfamiliar term and looked it up on Wikipedia. At the time, it wasn’t the current, relatively balanced article, but right from the start it stated that libertarians are guys who advocate for the rejection of aggressive violence. I was like: what? What does this crap even have to do with my interest? And so I started digging into the matter in detail. Since then, like that Shulman who doesn’t understand what could be more fascinating than parliamentarism (except perhaps British literature, but best of all, British literature about parliamentarism), I don’t understand what could be more fascinating than economic theory and libertarian law, although the abbreviation NAP and its many derivatives still make me cringe a little.
I sincerely believe that selling libertarianism to people through the NAP is methodologically incorrect and provokes people to view us as some kind of strange freaks. Purely aesthetically, the NAP can only be convincingly advocated by a person with a weapon, ready to use it at any moment for self-defense, because the non-aggression principle is the ethics of armed people, not the whim of the unarmed. If you are a clumsy lady, a pampered girl with manicured nails, or a slender metrosexual, advocate for something else.
Sorry, I got carried away, but you asked for personal stories, and I have them.
“Remember, children: NAP is when everyone has everyone else in their sights, but no one shoots”
For variety, I decided to record an audio version of the story; perhaps some will prefer the voice format
No matter how much one wants to always take the straightest path to a goal, if the interlocutor’s head is already shaped like a screw-hole, it’s pointless to hammer something straight in there; you have to screw it in.
This is where marketing comes to our rescue, with all its techniques aimed at increasing sales. For example, it makes sense to understand exactly what pain lies behind a mother’s objections. Because what is the point of talking about social safety nets in private companies in a free market in an affluent society, if her pain isn’t caused by the demise of Soviet social security, but, say, by savings burned in some financial pyramid, or by shootouts in the streets. Then, we work with that pain.
Pyramids
Explain that the most important reason for the rapid rise of pyramids was the need to protect one’s savings from hyperinflation, and hyperinflation was caused by the state’s frantic emission of money. Consumers never demand inflationary money; they much prefer stability, or even deflation, so that they can simply put money in a piggy bank and have it retain its value for decades.
And this is Bitcoin, Mom. Designed by hardcore ancaps specifically for that very purpose. Even gold, as a tool for long-term value preservation, works worse, because gold production can be increased in the event of a surge in demand, but you can’t pull that trick with Bitcoin. Well, and if there are cryptocurrencies, then we can boldly get rid of all these central banks, hooray.
Shootouts
Explain that in the wild nineties, the state by no means stopped regulating issues of civilian weapons and establishing rules for resolving conflicts. The police were happy to pressure law-abiding citizens, giving them neither the means to effectively oppose gangsters nor the ability to sue them, but at the same time, they readily backed down before any moderately brazen thug. Naturally, this created a powerful economic incentive for criminal behavior and provided no reward for striving toward a peaceful resolution of issues. In effect, this means that in the nineties, the state worked with all its meager power for the aggressors, until it managed to somehow squeeze the preferential right to banditry away from private aggressors.
Tell me, if you were cornered on the street now with a demand for your wallet, and you pulled a Glock out of your purse and shot the robbers, would you perhaps be praised for riddding society of dangerous criminals? No, you would be charged with illegal possession of a weapon and exceeding the limits of self-defense, and you’d be imprisoned for a long time, eating up taxpayers’ money in jail. And if you don’t shoot, but only frighten them, you’ll be charged just for possessing the weapon, and you’ll still be imprisoned. So why on earth do you need such a “protector”—this very state?
Oh, you don’t want to carry a Glock, you want it so that people don’t attack you? Well, can you go to an insurance company and get insurance against robbery? No. Because companies would only start insuring against that if they had the right to maintain order and effectively oppose gangsters. And that is exactly what is forbidden—state monopoly. No matter where you turn, no matter how you try to secure your life—you run into this or that state prohibition.
You’d better know what is currently in your mother’s head instead of ancap. Act subtly, feed her individual cases, both regarding state lawlessness and (this is much more important!) regarding the effective resolution of vital issues without the state or even despite it. And eventually, she won’t even notice when she starts discussing these things with her neighbors, because people are very fond of secret knowledge unavailable to ordinary mortals—how could she not share it with those ignorant folks?
People are held captive by Hobbes. The idea of a war of all against all, from which the benevolent state saves them, looms over their minds. It is even strange that it hasn’t started being taught in middle school yet. However, propaganda doesn’t necessarily need to delve into the depths of the history of philosophy; it shoves the wicked nineties in people’s faces and tries to convince them: here it is, your ancap—do you like it, do you want it again, you cannibals?
This is precisely what people ask first when they hear that there is not a single service officially provided by the state that could not be provided with higher quality and at a lower cost in a free competitive market. In other words, people say, you want to privatize everything, abolish all social protection, and leave only a wild market flooded with scammers and bandits, with no one left to fight them.
After such an approach, not everyone manages to explain that a new set of nineties is certainly not the goal, nor even an inevitable consequence of the transition to a market, and let’s look at Georgia, for example, which is much closer to current times. Many simply shut down, either because their personal experience of the nineties was too painful, or because they didn’t intend to have a discussion in the first place and simply consider this the most effective thesis against ancap.
Did you miss me?
As for the memes about roads and similar folklore—that is the interest of those who are younger, who didn’t experience the nineties at a conscious age, and for them, ancap is just some abstract internet joke
