Автор: Анкап-тян

Libertarianism assumes only private companies (anarcho-cap.). But what about state hospitals? Does it mean a sick person will not be able to receive free help? There are quite many sick people, and not everyone has money. Charity is unlikely to help here.

anonymous question

Let’s keep it simple. Let’s open the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation for 2017 and look at health care spending. 2.8 trillion rubles. That is 20 thousand rubles per person per year, less than 1.7 thousand per month, and this amount includes all corruption, all kickbacks, embezzlement, and simply inefficient spending. Absolutely pittance, less than the average utility bill.

In a situation where there are no taxes or regulations, by very conservative estimates, wages would increase, say, by only 50%. Suppose that all those who were previously treated under a compulsory health insurance policy purchase voluntary insurance policies exactly in the amount of former government health expenditures, spending approximately 1,700 rubles per person per month, and all those who previously paid out of pocket maintain their habits. The median salary in Russia today, according to a very sloppily conducted survey on Navalny’s blog, is about 15,000 rubles.

What is the result? The median salary under ancap increases by 50% and becomes 22,500 rubles. Let’s say the median worker supports one dependent. He pays 3,400 rubles for two policies, and he has 19,100 rubles left. That is, he is still wealthier than he was before ancap, while also having good paid medicine.

Of course, there are still cases where a poor family faces an expensive-to-treat disease not covered by a standard policy. What does a poor family do now? They go to charitable foundations, and those foundations spam social networks with posts saying “Mashenka has a fucking disaster of a disease, we urgently need a trillion rubles.” Well, that is exactly what they will do under ancap, only the probability of receiving money to treat the disaster will increase by 50%, proportional to the increase in average income (assuming that people continue to donate to charity approximately the same percentage of their income as they do now).

Summary. Fully privatized and deregulated healthcare in the absence of taxes is capable of providing every Russian with medical service better than what they have now, without requiring amounts that would be critical for them.

treat the disaster!

What to do if I am in a new class and nobody is friends with me?

anonymous question

A second non-serious question, so there will be two answers in one day

From the perspective of Marxist class theory, supplemented by Leninist class practice, when transitioning to another class, a person may share the interests of their old class for a long time, and thus participate in the class struggle on the wrong side. That is exactly why newly recruited representatives of a class usually strive to be holier than the Pope: if they are a nouveau riche, then with a mega-yacht; if a peasant, then with a beard down to the floor and a back fully hunched with traditional values. You can try this tactic; it looks funny from the outside, but psychologically, they say, it helps a lot.

And from the point of view of the Austrian school of economics, classes do not exist, Neo)

are not friends…

When will the Rostral Columns finally be renamed the Lustral ones?

anonymous question

In honor of Sunday, a day of unserious questions is declared=)

Unserious answer 1

When Mikhail Svetov transfers to the St. Petersburg branch of the LPR.

Unserious answer 2

When Alexander Litreev’s video blog reaches 100 thousand subscribers.

Serious answer

You did it when you asked your question. Any location has as many names as are used. There is the Nemtsov Bridge in Moscow, there is the Navalny Park in Novosibirsk, and now there are the Lustral Columns in St. Petersburg. At the same time, you can name the bow of every yacht on every column: this one is Photinia, and this one is St. Princess Olga…

Discussion of the pension reform catches up with me from every channel. Doesn’t the fact that for some time the number of beneficiaries of this predatory clusterfuck will not grow—not reduce the number of beneficiaries in the future, and not increase the chances that in perspective this clusterfuck might possibly be cancelled altogether?

anonymous question

The fact that the state will collectively receive more money from working people and return less to those who have reached the threshold age will only increase the number of beneficiaries of this predatory clusterfuck. A pensioner receiving an old-age pension is not a beneficiary of the pension clusterfuck; they are just as much a victim of it as someone who didn’t live to see retirement—they have simply been compensated for part of the damage previously sustained. The beneficiaries, however, are the pension fund employees and those who manage the plundered pension savings. Naturally, there will only be more of them as a result of such a reform.

One can conditionally agree with the logic of “the worse, the better.” The more victims the system has, and the fewer chances they have to receive any compensation within the system, the more reasons there are for the complete abolition of the system; whereas if the robbery were more moderate, far more people would be willing to tolerate it, and the few dissatisfied people would talk about reforms rather than the abolition of the system.

On the other hand, the worse, the worse. “The poor pray that their poverty is guaranteed.” Try to abolish the system of robbing the working class all at once if there is a hole in the pension fund and the elderly are universally destitute without savings—they will tear you apart, no matter how charismatic a reformer you are.

Example of the only reasonable behavior toward the pension system

And, as already mentioned, there is no more reliable tool for pension savings today than bitcoins. So you can donate a few of them to my channel 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8, and set aside the majority for your own old age.

Do libertarians realize that their ideology is impossible in the real world, since “non-aggression” itself contradicts human nature?

anonymous question

The correct definition of the non-aggression principle is as follows:
No one has the right to initiate violence with impunity.
If Alice initiates violence against Bob and does not face responsibility, the society does not cease to be libertarian. It ceases to be libertarian if there is a rule according to which neither Bob nor Carol has the right to hold Alice accountable for initiating violence.
The state is an organization of violence elevated into an institution, that is, precisely the kind of order where Alice is not held responsible for initiating violence simply because the state ordered it so.

The question is, what corresponds more to human nature: the desire to hold accountable everyone who initiates violence, or only those whom some external enforcer allows to be held accountable? I think if the latter corresponded more to human nature, we would have to admit that calls to hang thieving officials from lampposts do not correspond to human nature. Meanwhile, even the thieving officials themselves do not claim such heresy; on the contrary, they say that it is a natural human impulse, but let us be civilized people and obediently follow the laws we have invented.

symbolic violence, not elevated into an institution

Just think about it, it’s so unnatural: to just go ahead and donate bits to a favorite telegram channel: 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

If a libertarian penitentiary system is aimed at restitution, then how will it work in the case of a murderer?

anonymous question

The system will work exactly as it does with a robber. Compensation for damages resulting from a murder will be demanded by those who suffered that damage. This is precisely why insurance companies play such an important role in theoretical developments regarding ancap: they suffer direct financial loss from the death of the insured person, and therefore, a developed insurance market will obviously lead to a reduction in the murder rate.

If one attempts to limit feedback to such archaic mechanisms as blood feuds, this also works, of course, but it looks rather primitive in modern society; more effective market mechanisms have been developed in our time.

What’s going on with New Hampshire? Which laws did they manage to change? How many libertarians ended up moving there?

anonymous question

I will remind those who are not aware of what, exactly, we are talking about. New Hampshire is a fairly sparsely populated state in New England that was chosen for the implementation of the Free State Project – a project to build a minarchist utopia in a single state. According to the plan, during the project’s crypto-phase, people were to sign a declaration of intent to relocate to New Hampshire once 20,000 such signatories were gathered. It was assumed that given the current population of the state, an active minority of twenty thousand would be able to effectively implement its policies.

In fact, the relocation began even before the coveted figure was reached. Today, according to data from the project’s official website, 24,155 people have signed the declaration, and 4,392 people have moved to the state.

FSP is not a political organization, and most of those who moved simply live according to libertarian ideals. However, Freestaters have also developed political activity. The project’s website claims that throughout the project’s existence, a total of 45 Freestaters have been elected to the state’s representative bodies.

Even before the start of the project, New Hampshire was somewhere in the top ten states by freedom index, and after the launch of the relocation, it confidently climbed to first place within about three years. The state has very lenient laws regarding weapons, substances, road control, and small business regulation. Homeschooling is also widespread here, and the religiosity of the residents is very low—while tolerance towards religions remains high.

Mikhail Svetov claims that the fastest-growing community in the USA is the Amish. In terms of organic growth, this may be true, but if you consider those joining from the outside, the Freestaters obviously beat the Amish with one hand tied behind their back.
The LPR is represented in the FSP by a member of the St. Petersburg branch, Yuri Polozov.

A landscape of the Free State, which for some reason I wildly love))

Furthermore, thanks to the Freestaters, New Hampshire is a leader in the implementation of cryptocurrency payments. If I eventually make it to reporting from the Free State, that’s exactly where your donations will come in handy. Bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8.