Автор: Анкап-тян

From HOAs to libertarian communities?

(I would like to ask this question someday to the evangelist of libertarianism for all of Russia, Svetov, but an ordinary person cannot live on Mikhail alone!)

Doesn’t a Homeowners Association (HOA) seem to you as a quite decent, relatively closely related to anarchism in general, socially appealing, and also relatively organizationally easy way to start your own local community?

Atomic Travmay

In general, your logic is completely correct: since ancap is the natural state of society, it manifests most fully precisely in the primary cooperation between people, where state interference is absent or minimal. That is, in HOAs, dacha and garage cooperatives, shadow entrepreneurship, joint procurement organizations, and similar associations. In short, everywhere where people unite voluntarily, are guided by rules they developed themselves, delegate exactly those rights that they themselves possess, and exactly the minimum they deem necessary…

Of course, an HOA is not the most successful example of such an association, as they are more regulated than many others. Nevertheless, HOAs know how to quite effectively resist the state’s encroachments on their autonomy: they choose their own service providers, policies for the use of common property, and so on. It was the HOAs who complained the loudest when mandatory capital repair fees were introduced, and they largely managed to ensure that these fees were not thrown into a general pot but remained in the account of the HOA itself.

The following important step toward strengthening local self-governance suggests itself. The election law allows persons elected by residents’ meetings to be part of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs). Currently, the vast majority of PEC members are employees of municipal infrastructure institutions: schools, kindergartens, and the like. Some are “by place of work.” Some are “from parties.” But de facto, these are all employees of the same collective. Meanwhile, imagine a PEC that includes six apartment buildings, each with an organized HOA, and a representative from each HOA sits on the commission! And another four or five people from parties, as is customary. If such a thing were to start—people would begin electing municipal deputies en masse, and from there, it’s not far to human governors.

In general, my message is this: primary cooperation around one’s own selfish interests is the most reliable and well-trodden path to building a civil society, and whether some piece of the state will manage to be preserved in the process, or if it will be possible to get rid of it entirely—that is already largely a matter of faith.

The market will decide, amen!

Who is in favor of nominating Mikhail Svetov as a member of the PEC from the PRG?

Hi. If only traditional terminology for characterizing political currents (left/right) is used, would it be correct to call libertarianism a socially left and economically right movement?

анонимный вопрос

The question reminded me of the disputes regarding the self-definition of the Libertarian Party of the USA: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. It’s roughly clear what is meant, but it looks like an attempt to assemble the word “eternity” from four known letters.

“Left” and “right” are such vague terms, so easily loaded with an entirely arbitrary agenda, that it’s almost scary to even use them.

Originally, the right wing in the French parliament represented the aristocracy, and now they are associated with Nazis and Christian conservatives; so why use “economically right-wing movement” instead of the correct “movement for economic freedom”? To confuse everyone? Or simply to set themselves in opposition to the economically left?

The socially left advocate not only for the freedom to use psychoactive substances or for the right to abortion, but also, for example, for the criminalization of sex workers’ clients, as well as for gun control. So why call oneself by the vague term “socially left” when you can immediately speak of a movement for personal freedom?

Why, under ancap, will courts follow libertarian principles of law?

анонимный вопрос

Answering this question is not just simple, but very simple. If people only apply to a court voluntarily, and the court has no means of coercing the execution of its decisions—which is precisely the kind of pathetic existence courts might lead under ancap—then courts have no options left but to follow libertarian principles of law.

Alice, based on the principle of self-ownership, voluntarily turned to a court to resolve a conflict with Bob. The court denies Alice self-ownership and issues a verdict stating that she has no right to own any property, so that Bob has the right of exclusive disposal over all disputed property, starting with Alice herself. Bob, in accordance with the court’s decision, appropriates all the property, including Alice, whom he keeps on a leash and beats for any disobedience.


Under ancap, there cannot be a sad girl on a leash!

What will stop Alice from sabotaging the court’s decision and actively resisting Bob, seeking any outside help? What will stop any outsider who, seeing a violation of the NAP, asks what is going on, is told it is the execution of a court decision, and responds that he doesn’t give a fuck?

Since the question itself postulates that it is ancap all around, it means the vast majority of relationships in this society are voluntary and market-based. This is precisely what everyone perceives as the norm, and any deviation from the norm must be hidden or very carefully justified.

One can ask “what would be the typical reaction under ancap to such-and-such a deviation from libertarian principles,” and in response, those typical reactions will be described, demonstrating the feedback mechanisms in an anarcho-capitalist society that make deviating from basic principles unprofitable. But it is pointless to frame the question as “how to fight mass deviations of courts from libertarian principles under ancap?” If they are mass deviations, it is no longer ancap, and one must look into why they are mass and which feedback mechanisms were lacking.

The question of whether a pure anarcho-capitalist society is stable has no theoretical solution today. Societies considered precursors to ancap in legal terms (Ireland, Iceland) were historically defeated by external forces, but this is not an argument for internal instability.

What are the drawbacks of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories?

анонимный вопрос

The main drawback of both libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories is that they do not exist.

There is an economic theory developed by the Austrian school of economics, which took on a relatively cohesive form thanks to Mises. This is praxeology, that is, the theory of human action; catallactics, that is, the theory of exchange; the theory of money, the theory of interventionism, the theory of the business cycle, and so on. The logic of the libertarian doctrine’s presentation is built upon economic theory, and it is used to verify various fantasies regarding the possible structure of society. Austrian economic theory does not provide quantitative forecasts and postulates the fundamental impossibility of doing so, which gives many followers of other schools reason to criticize it for uselessness in this regard.

There is a libertarian legal theory, also known as institutional or sociological. Russian libertarians generally tend to rely on it in their legal constructions, which is not least because it was developed by Vladimir Chetvernin, who is Russian and still alive. In the English-speaking world, natural law theories are more common.

There are various ethical libertarian teachings: some take natural rights as their basis, others derive ethics from the idea of a contract, and some rely on consequentialism—that is, evaluating actions by their consequences. In short, in the field of ethics, libertarians experience considerable fragmentation and instability.

As a result, libertarianism is a rather broad and pluralistic current of thought, which can be seen as both a plus (there is internal discussion, there is development, but there is also agreement on the fundamentals) and a minus (there is no unambiguous opinion on a number of specialized questions, some of which are quite serious—for example, whether an institution such as the state has a right to exist).


Cool little tree, and Chetvernin isn’t even here yet…

Update: after the post was already written, a video with Alexei Tereshchuk was released on SVTV, which deals precisely with similar issues.

And what does libertarianism say about alimony? After cohabitation, a child remains, the “husband” left and does not want to pay alimony?

Roman

Family is a communist cell in an ocean of the free market. Outside, there is private property and commodity-money relations, inside everything is shared, and there are gift relationships. But then one of the members of the communist cell decides to leave it and enter the market. What happens to the property? What happens to the accumulated obligations? Under communism, all of this continues to exist, but in a latent, implicit form.

One partner invests resources into another, expecting that over time there will be some return from the second person. Instead, after some time, the second person decides to leave. Or two people decide to have a child; this is a long-term creative project lasting a couple of decades, constantly consuming resources. And then one of the partners exits the project. Or, even worse, exits the family, but wishes to continue participating specifically in the project of raising the child.

The transition from communism to market relations is always privatization, the fixation of obligations, and a transition from implicit assumptions to clear contracts. The two most typical contracts in a divorce are a property division agreement and an agreement on regular payments to settle accumulated obligations. The latter are the very alimony payments you asked about.

As is easy to see, under a state, the evasion of alimony payments is widespread because those upon whom this obligation is placed consider it unfair. Indeed, it is hard to consider it fair when the lion’s share of the property during division goes to the party who invested fewer resources into its creation, and at the same time, the second party continues to bear financial obligations toward the first.

Now let’s move on to how it would be under ancap.

When I was talking about the future of the institution of marriage under ancap, I briefly touched upon the topic of children. Under ancap, a child to a much greater extent decides for themselves who to live with, who to be friends with, and from whom and what to learn. Thus, regular targeted payments for the maintenance of a child after divorce under ancap are far less likely than now, unless someone agrees to this voluntarily.

So, court-ordered alimony under ancap will be awarded primarily as payment for accumulated obligations, and the child will have nothing to do with it at all. For example, a wife paid for her husband’s landscape design courses, and after the divorce, he reimburses her for the cost of the courses.

The only example of court-ordered alimony related to a child that comes to mind is if a child is conceived at the husband’s initiative, which is documented, and at some late stage of pregnancy he changes his mind. Well, now he will have to pay a penalty “under the gestation contract.”

And what means of coercion for payments exist under ancap? Exactly the same as now: freezing of accounts and seizure of property.

How to conduct an investigation under ancap?

Unlike a modern state, in a libertarian society, it is impermissible to detain suspects, intrude into private life through surveillance, compel testimony through the threat of violence, or forbid perjury. How then is the non-aggression principle to be applied without all these extremely useful tools necessary for an investigation? After all, without them, it is simply impossible to catch anyone, which means that instead of non-aggression, we will face impunity for a violent criminal who was not killed in self-defense.

anonymous question

Not everything is so bleak)

Surveillance

Surveillance and uncovering secrets of private life do not violate the non-aggression principle at all, so under ancap conditions, this direction will face even fewer obstacles than under a state. We should all mentally prepare to live in a condition of a 24/7 stream of everyone and everything in the public domain. It is already almost like this now, and the trend will only develop.

Compelling testimony

As usual, the state’s stick will be replaced by the ancap carrot. Yes, a person has the right not to share information with anyone, but if they are materially interested, the probability of evidence appearing increases. Even now, it is not perceived as something extraordinary when someone interested in an investigation announces a reward for testimony. As for compelling testimony against oneself, this is forbidden even under a state, although we all know how tenderly state representatives treat such prohibitions.

Detention of suspects

The more developed surveillance technologies are, the less need there is to detain a suspect. Simply put, retrospective research through open sources—what the suspect was doing at the moment in question—will finally replace interrogations and confrontations.

Actually, it is strange that this question concerns you so much: we are currently literally watching in real-time the investigation of numerous crimes committed by Russian officials, military personnel, and intelligence officers through open sources. In effect, almost everything here is as it is under ancap: you cannot detain, you cannot compel testimony, but it is quite realistic to study the matter. As for how the transition from investigation to court, or directly to sanctions, occurs under ancap, I have already written multiple times.

But what about the lamp in the face, the handcuffs, the good cop and bad cop? A whole layer of culture will perish!

Survey about social networks

I decided to start a Twitter account, but I want to understand which other publication formats you find convenient. It’s clear that almost all of you came from Telegram, but perhaps some of you would prefer to read fresh posts somewhere else instead.

В каких соцсетях вам наиболее удобно было бы меня читать?
  • Add your answer
Results

Перечислила имеющиеся, можете предлагать и свои варианты

experimental field

Can a libertarian demand respectful behavior toward themselves (not only in communication) by virtue of their age or past merits and achievements? And can someone demanding this be called a libertarian?

anonymous question

I will take advantage of your question to talk a bit about terms.

There is an offer. One subject says to another: let’s make an exchange, I give you A, you give me B. Refusing the offer without violating libertarian principles can become a reason for bargaining (how about B+C?), or for a shrug of the shoulders: well, it’s my business to offer, and your business to refuse.

There is a request. One subject says to another: give me A, if you don’t mind. Refusing to fulfill a request without violating libertarian principles can become a reason to move to an offer (what if I give you B, will you give me A?) or for a shrug of the shoulders: well, if not, then not.

And there is a demand, which is a request with a specified sanction for non-compliance. One subject says to another: give me A, or I will do B to you, and it won’t be pleasant. If no sanction is provided, it is not a demand, but a request. If a sanction is provided but not specified, it is a demand disguised as a request (I do not recommend such a practice, but these are my personal taste preferences).

In principle, one can distinguish another gradation where a demand is accompanied by a preliminary small sanction to prove the seriousness of intentions. Let’s call such a demand, for example, an ultimatum.

From the point of view of libertarian principles, making a demand or, even more so, an ultimatum, is permissible in relation to persons who have caused damage to the claimant. If the damage is material, it is permissible to specify material sanctions in the demand; if the damage is simply an inconvenience, then it is permissible in the demand to specify only the causing of inconvenience as sanctions.

And so we move to the answer to the question. Yes, a libertarian has the right to demand certain conveniences out of respect for age, but they can only threaten the causing of inconvenience for non-compliance.

— Young man, give up your seat for the grandmother!
The young man ignores the demand disguised as a request.
— How ill-mannered today’s youth has become! They jump on the bus and immediately run for a free seat. 
And then the grandmother stands over his soul and grumbles, causing inconvenience.

well-mannered youth

Likewise, a libertarian has the right to demand preferences out of respect for merits, but they can only threaten, for example, with the refusal of further cooperation, thanks to which these merits appeared.

— I have been working for you for five years without any complaints, and every time you put me on New Year’s duty without even asking for my opinion. I don’t care about double pay; I want New Year’s with my family and children. Either you show respect, or I will look for another employer who will show it.

If someone accidentally bumped me with their shoulder or stepped on my foot, and I shot the “aggressor” in response—would I be right from the perspective of the NAP?

anonymous question

For reasons that are unclear to me, in Russian libertarianism, the main emphasis is too often placed on the NAP, and the non-aggression principle is given not so much a legal meaning, but rather an ethical, or even mystical, one. All sorts of bastardized constructions like “I didn’t sign a NAP with you” or “he exited the NAP” stem from this intellectual imbalance. The violation of the NAP becomes a magic trigger that transforms a person from a legal subject into an object of legitimate violence.

As a reminder, the correct formulation of the NAP is “no one has the right to the unpunished initiation of violence.” And this principle is a derivative of the far more fundamental principle of self-ownership, which asserts a person’s inalienable property right to their own body. Violence, therefore, is an infringement on property. This infringement entails legal consequences if the owner so wills it.

The NAP, by asserting the lack of a right to unpunished aggressive violence, says nothing about the measure of punishment. Simply put, you have a property claim against another person: he stepped on your foot. You present this claim to him. In response, he suggests you don’t put your feet wherever you please, meaning he asserts that you created an obstacle for him, preventing him from moving freely across a territory that, for example, belongs to neither of you. By stepping on your foot, he avoided a trip-up that would have caused him property damage. You, in turn, are flabbergasted and suggest he wash his eyes and look where he’s going, meaning you assert that his behavior poses a constant systemic threat to those around him. He responds by saying he fucked your mother and tells you to fuck off. Thus, if one does not take his statement literally, he is asserting that he is ready to use violence against you if you do not stop making claims against him. You respond by telling him he’s out of line, a faggot, and that you will now make him lick your boots with his tongue. In other words, you promise the enforcement of the satisfaction of your property claims, but leave him the opportunity to bargain over the amount of compensation. He responds by promising to shove your boots up your ass, meaning he categorically refuses to satisfy your property claim in any form and expresses readiness to escalate damage in response to your attempt at enforcement. You, in turn, shoot him dead, meaning you apply ultimate economic sanctions against him, rendering his property useless.

Of course, in this case, there might not have been an argument, and you might have applied these economic sanctions immediately, without waiting for the counterparty’s refusal to pay compensation for damages. But to a potential judge, the case looks exactly like this: relatively small damage was caused to you, and in response, you caused significantly greater damage. Consequently, should you be required to make some compensatory payments to someone, should you be expelled from the local community, or should you be thanked for taking out a dangerous asshole who loved to pick on people but was, fortunately, not as skilled with a weapon as you—exactly what decision the court will reach will depend on many circumstances that the court must consider. Your reputation, the reputation of the deceased, community traditions, the compensation requested by the deceased’s friends, the personal moral beliefs of the judge, and possibly a number of other factors will play a role.

And these legal frameworks concerning permissible sanctions for a given property damage are a spontaneous order that will form in a libertarian society, optimally adapting it to the needs of people such that people’s satisfaction in society is maximized and conflicts are minimized. Because that is precisely the function of law—to resolve conflicts. 

What are the main goals that ancap sets for foreign policy? And what will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism?

anonymous question

One could answer briefly by stating that within the framework of ancap, there is no foreign policy, since this term refers to interstate relations, and there are no states under ancap. But let’s expand the answer a bit: of course, I’m not paid by the character, but I simply don’t want to release entirely meager texts in separate posts.

What could be likened to foreign policy for ancap? I suppose, relations with entities that are territorially distant, different in culture, type of economic activity, everyday habits, and perhaps even not entirely ancaps. And what are the main goals ancap sets in such a “foreign policy”? Naturally, to ensure freedom of trade with them.

If I find out that somewhere in the depths of the southeast there is the unforgettable smelly durian fruit, I want to be able to buy it. If not in a supermarket in the next block, then at least to visit the durian myself. The people who grow this curious fruit are needed so that I can try it, and as for what the structure of the commodity-money transactions that reunite me with the durian will be—the market knows best.

What will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism? The same freedom of trade. The famous international festival KaZantip will return there. Girls in bright swimsuits will flock to the Crimean sea, slender speleologists will flock to Crimean caves, tasters saturated with Georgia will flock to Crimean wine cellars, and the long-awaited Dnipro water will return to Crimean fields at market rates.

Beautiful! How could one not visit such a place?