Автор: Анкап-тян

Why, from the perspective of libertarianism, are market manipulation and insider trading not crimes? And why should serious financial crimes not be regulated by the state at all?

@wizard1209

Market manipulation is an attempt by a certain market player to predict the behavior of other market players in response to various options of their own behavior. They bet money that their prediction is true, and that a certain market behavior will bring them profit at the expense of other players’ losses—and then they test their prediction.

Formally, there is no violation of the non-aggression principle here, but if the manipulator’s prediction turns out to be correct, other players suffer a loss, and they, after all, did not enter the market for that purpose. Therefore, it is not surprising that the manipulator may be disliked.

Most market participants prefer predictability and do not highly value a store where, as a result of manipulations, the price jumps randomly. Therefore, the store is interested in introducing its own restrictions that make manipulation more difficult, and the smaller the market size, the more relevant such things are for the owners of trading platforms.

Insider trading is the same kind of market manipulation, except that the manipulation is carried out by the trading platform itself or persons affiliated with it. Naturally, for the reputation of a trading platform, being caught in insider trading is even more dangerous than if it allows manipulations by third parties. Therefore, in developed markets, insider trading is fought even more strictly.
And the state, when attempting to fight these things, as is its habit, either simply tends to make a mess with the best of intentions because it doesn’t know how to be efficient—or, under the pretext of fighting manipulations and insider trading, engages in those very manipulations and insider trading.

Now, in cryptocurrency trading, there are as many market manipulations as you like, but the higher the turnover, the less dangerous it is for those who do not suffer from it. So choose Bitcoin; it is the least prone to manipulation of all cryptos. I have chosen it specifically as the currency for receiving your kind donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Sup, Ancap-chan. How will fundamental scientific research (mathematical and physical, for example) work in the absence of state funding? As history shows, such things only begin to bring benefit after decades and centuries. Will private foundations really invest in this?

anonymous question

How did fundamental scientific research work before the emergence of state academies of sciences? There were two main mechanisms.

First. A scientist conducted their research independently and at their own expense, satisfying their own private interest.

Second. A scientist found a patron, usually some aristocrat, and conducted research at the patron’s expense, while simultaneously fulfilling their minor whims and contributing to the increase of the patron’s prestige.

What are the contraindications to using these mechanisms even after the state withers away? Effectively, only one. It is claimed that quite many fundamental scientific projects are too expensive to implement for a single patron to be able to afford. Well, since the time of pre-state science, financial institutions have made good progress, so funds with billion-dollar budgets are by no means an exotic rarity now.

The question of motivation remains. What would prompt a potential sponsor of fundamental science to invest in a particular fund? Exactly the same considerations apply here as in patronage or philanthropy: the sponsor satisfies their sense of self-importance and gets good PR. Accordingly, for money to flow into fundamental science, it needs good marketing: stroking the egos of sponsors, vividly highlighting the results obtained and the breathtaking prospects. This is, of course, very soulless, but far fairer than the current model, where money is forcibly collected into a black box, and the report on results is given in the most tedious form possible, understandable only to narrow specialists, but not to those who pay.

Yes, it may happen that a stateless society will not fund certain fundamental mega-projects, and the Large Hadron Collider will never be built. Well, so be it; on the other hand, thousands of small projects will receive funding that would not have been allocated under a state because of it.

Bet you can’t build a Death Star on donations, huh, Elon Musk?

Of course, fundamental science will always compete for donations with art, sports, Mashinka’s nonsense, and Ancap-chan (donate here: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8) – but this is a normal market process. I, too, would like to work on making donating to the channel prestigious.

Are there examples of successful legalization of firearms (without a noticeable increase in the number of offenses)? Perhaps there were negative consequences of legalization? I know that the legalization of drugs has almost no effect on the amount of abuse. Is this also true for weapons?

anonymous question

The most successful example of the beneficial influence of legalization for a Russian-speaking audience is, of course, Moldova. A post-Soviet country introduces the legal acquisition, carrying, and use for self-defense of rifled short-barreled firearms—and the curve of violent crime drops sharply. The same occurred in the Baltics, although the example of phlegmatic Balts is not as convincing to the listener as a story about hot-blooded Moldovan guys. But the most statistics come, of course, from the States, where half of all crime is concentrated in just two percent of counties with the strictest gun laws, which are ethnic ghettos, while in the most armed areas, violent crimes are practically non-existent.

There are also downsides to legalization—they appear when legalization is carried out partially and thoughtlessly.

For instance, in Kazakhstan, instead of legalizing rifled short-barreled firearms, they only made the acquisition of traumatic weapons extremely simplified. As a result, traumatic weapons became a convenient tool in clashes between gangs: this weapon is very useful as support in a fight since it cannot be tracked by any ballistic examination, and the psychological threshold for its use is extremely low, as it is supposedly not a “real” gun. Consequently, the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction, and Kazakhstan has begun to tighten the screws, as hoplophobes now have an excellent argument for doing so.

In Russia, gun legislation is generally tolerable, although it is quite inconsistent regarding rifled short-barreled firearms. Law enforcement practice is much worse here; in many ways, it is this, rather than the law on weapon circulation, that encourages criminals—since they know that the victim will hesitate until the last moment before using a weapon, not wanting to deal later with much more frightening criminals: the Russian police.

The main thing to understand about weapons is that a criminal always has one. He will simply buy a gun on the black market using bitcoins, as it is far less dangerous for him to be caught with a gun than to be unprepared for a showdown with competitors. Meanwhile, someone who earns a living in more peaceful sectors would rather spend their bitcoins on donating to Ancap-chan, and for them, it is important to have a legal gun, as well as the right to use it legally for self-defense.

Response to the article on the value of bitcoin

Wild Turkey

On July 10, I answered a question about libertarians’ love for bitcoin. The author of the question sent their objections to this answer.

Mises, in creating the theory of money, formulated the regression theorem, according to which today’s value of money is determined by its value yesterday, and this can be traced back to the point when money was an ordinary commodity having only simple consumer value. The fact that gold specifically became the sole standard for backing money by the 20th century was the result of government regulations; in a free banking system before that, a bimetallic standard took hold, which is described in sufficient detail by the aforementioned Rothbard.

These are details; the history of bimetallism is a separate topic. Either way, money consisted of either precious metals themselves or obligations to issue them with varying degrees of reliability.

Cryptocurrency lacks this property, as does any other modern fiat currency.

Another classic of libertarianism, Hayek, openly advocated for private money…

He advocated for private money issued by banks with an obligation to quote its value pegged to a declared basket of goods. Obviously, bitcoin lacks this property.

In order to understand exactly how and thanks to what bitcoin acquired its value, I recommend reading the classic article by Jeffrey Tucker, kindly translated in 2014 by the Bitnovosti resource.

Tucker completely forgot about the subjectivism of value and sought the notorious intrinsic value, finding it in the properties of the blockchain as a payment system similar to PayPal, and the value of crypto-coins as virtual shares of such a system. A beautiful solution, but not in the spirit of the AEL and contradictory.

Thus, bitcoin, acting as digital peer-to-peer gold, does not contradict economic theory as presented by both the classics of the AEL and their modern followers.

The comparison with gold remains problematic, because gold is a unique commodity, whereas an infinite number of crypto-algorithms can be invented, and the value of any one of them is ultimately given only by novelty or the hype caused by distrust in the modern financial system.

Why are there so many anime fans among your supporters?

anonymous question

To be honest, I don’t fully understand it myself.

It’s just that anime is a genre as far removed as possible from any kind of traditional values. Apparently, free people are drawn to those directions in art that they associate with freedom. Thirty years ago, they were more drawn to Hollywood, but now, from all its wealth of ideas, only the idea of diversity stands out, and as a result, the fashion for it is fading.

And then, of course, there is the general infantilization of humanity, linked to the fact that people have begun to live longer, richer, and more carefree lives, and therefore can afford not to fully leave childhood until the onset of senile dementia. It’s all better than turning into gloomy little old men at the age of five.

Bitcoin-chan

Right now I have pure, unadulterated childhood joy: in the third month of the channel’s existence, the first donation has finally arrived. Here it is, look how lovely!

Hi! How do things stand with animal rights in libertarianism? Can a person buy a kitten for the purpose of cruelly killing it? Can people create a community like Ancient Rome with the annual crucifixion of dogs?

anonymous question

What is the right to certain actions? It is a state of affairs in which others agree to tolerate these actions. In other words: you have the right to do something from the perspective of certain external subjects if they agree not to oppose these actions.

For instance, one kitten may have the right to sleep on a person’s face, while another may not even have the right to enter the person’s room.
Libertarianism is a legal doctrine asserting that no legal subject has the right to initiate violence against other legal subjects and their property with impunity. Thus, libertarianism reduces the question of acceptable treatment of animals to a question of legal personality. A stranger who has come from beyond the village outskirts—is he a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against him with impunity. A woman—is she a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against her with impunity. A child—is he a subject of law? An embryo—is it a subject of law? A dog—is it a subject of law?

In other words, purely logically, libertarianism can serve as a basis for defending animal rights—but only among those who recognize the legal personality of animals. As for those who consider animals to be objects, while remaining within the framework of the same libertarian doctrine, they may act toward the animals they own at their own discretion.
A problem arises when the positions of people who consider animals to be at least partially legal subjects (for example, at the level of children) clash with those of people who consider animals to be objects of property. The most stubborn disputes are always conducted precisely over definitions.

In essence, from the perspective of their opponents, animal rights advocates make claims against them for the suffering that the advocates themselves experience while realizing the suffering of animals in the hands of their tormentors. How should one react to such claims? As with any claims of an ethical rather than legal nature: take them into account, weigh the possible costs of fulfilling or not fulfilling the claim, and then act.

The better organized the groups applying moral pressure are, the sooner the corresponding morality becomes mainstream in society. So, those who nonetheless wish to crucify dogs without hindrance in a libertarian society need to start promoting this hobby of theirs in advance—under the banner of preserving cultural traditions, or some other way.

the kitty is sad(((

Hi! How do you feel about feminism? And what if I am a feminist and share libertarian ideas? Will I be accepted into the libertarian party? And how comfortable will I be there (I’ve heard that many of you don’t like feminists)?

anonymous question

Hi!

The answer to this question was composed in close cooperation with a feminist friend)))

I feel positive toward feminism, although I do not consider myself part of the movement. I am for equality. Whether or not to share certain values and ideas is a personal matter for each individual, and I have nothing against it as long as the non-aggression principle is not violated.
Many in the party view the problems raised by feminism as a particular case of the problem of aggressive violence, seeing no value in categorizing these issues as a separate class. So, in principle, it is entirely possible to simultaneously hold feminist and libertarian ideas.

How comfortable will a feminist be in the LPR? They certainly won’t be lonely, because there are feminists in the party, but as for comfort, I can’t say—that is a rather subjective concept. There are some in the party who are absolutely livid with non-libertarian feminists, but there are very few of them.

A post that lifts the veil and finally confuses everything

I want to introduce you to a true LPR-chan, known to many as @cannibalica

LPR-chan

Now, please send all nudes and questions about the libertarian party to her.

As for me, I will be happy to continue answering your questions on ancap, economic theory, libertarian law, ethics, and similar matters.

Ancap-chan

Thank you for staying on the channel! Love you all!

Let’s consider a situation: someone builds a pyrotechnics factory in the city center, and everyone’s fire insurance premiums go up. But the factory owner has not violated the NAP, so he owes nothing to anyone (and no one can forbid him from building this factory). Do libertarians not consider this a problem?

anonymous question

To answer this question more fully, Alexei Tereshchuk aka @kamendant, leader of the Austrian School of Economics public page on VKontakte and the chat on the same topic in Telegram, was brought in as an expert. Below is a mix of his explanations and my own thoughts.

What is the difference between the case of a factory that pollutes the surroundings and a factory that raises the cost of property insurance for its neighbors?

In the first case, the factory causes direct damage to those around it, and this damage can theoretically be subject to compensation, even if the methods of calculating the damage are quite unreliable — after all, to set the price for a bunch of radishes for an old woman at the market, it is also not necessary to calculate its cost price in detail.

In the second case, it is only a matter of increased risks, and the very attempt to insure these risks leads to additional costs. Such indirect damage is not related to a violation of the non-aggression principle and therefore is not subject to compensation. Indeed, we are surrounded by many factors that increase our risks, but which we are forced to put up with if we want to maintain our current lifestyle.

For example, in the city, we have a higher chance of getting into a car accident than in the village; this increases the risk and, accordingly, the price of insurance for this event — but it is not a reason to make property claims against all drivers in the city — only against the specific one who caused the accident in which the victim was involved.

So, libertarians do not consider it a problem that it is impossible to demand money from a pyrotechnics factory located in the city center simply for the fact of its presence in the center.

It is another matter that the insurance cost for the factory itself will be much higher if it is built in the center than if it is on the outskirts — because the risk of claims from neighbors affected by an accident will be insured, which means it is more profitable for the factory owner not to have neighbors in the danger zone.

explosion at a pyrotechnics factory – fun and scary