Автор: Анкап-тян

Why is there so little libertarianism in the libertarian party and is everything centralized?

anonymous question

I received a whole series of questions on a similar theme, and I chose the least acute phrasing that allows for a substantive answer.

The fundamental documentary description of the libertarian party, as with any other political party in Russia, is defined by the Russian law on political parties. The party made four attempts at state registration, making amendments to the charter each time to comply with the Ministry of Justice’s requirements. Eventually, the Ministry of Justice made it clear that there would be no registration without a green light from the presidential administration, and at the 2017 congress, a decision was made to end this farce until the wind changes.

But the charter remained: a charter of a vertical structure consisting of regional branches subordinate to a federal committee, with a congress convened by the federal committee according to representation norms adopted by the federal committee, and with a federal committee elected by the congress. Any Russian party created from the top down maintains full controllability thanks to such a layout until it is decided to tear it apart—after which alternative congresses, committees, and the like magically emerge, and the party is either seized or disappears.

The LPR, however, was created from the bottom up. This does not mean that within the framework of the same charter it suddenly becomes capable of meaningful activity. It means that the values of joint activity for the purpose of spreading the libertarian agenda prove to be higher for people than any formal decisions made without their participation or against their will. Therefore, the overall success of the party is greater the less attention party members pay to the formal side of party activity and, accordingly, the lower the notorious controllability is.

At this point, it’s worth asking why call itself a party at all, rather than a libertarian movement or something of the sort. What difference does it make? Historically, it so happened that this particular entity has this particular name. As long as the costs of keeping the name and charter documents are lower than the costs of changing them, everything will remain as it is; just don’t confuse the map with the territory. Next, you’ll be asking why a character named LPR-chan doesn’t project the official point of view of the party!

So the main thing is to ensure powerful momentum, engage new people as supporters, and compel outsiders to pronounce the word “libertarianism” without a hitch; whether a trip to the shooting range or bowling is documented as a meeting of the steering committee of a regional branch is completely unimportant.

LPR logo (by the way, a different logo is described in the charter, but who cares!)

Yes, just in case: donations to LPR-chan do not count as party dues.

Tell us about decentralized exchanges, their advantages and disadvantages

anonymous question

Well, at least someone is no longer asking why libertarians push for bitcoins, and is starting to ask rather specialized questions.

Why are exchanges needed

An exchange trader is the best friend of any cryptocurrency user because, in the hope of buying low and selling high, they provide the cryptocurrency system with the necessary liquidity; and the greater the liquidity, the smaller the difference between the buying and selling price of the currency (spread), the smaller the rate fluctuations (volatility), and, accordingly, the higher the attractiveness of crypto as a means of payment for goods.

A classic exchange (currency, commodity, stock — it doesn’t matter) is structured this way. The exchange acts as an intermediary that maintains a registry of assets in client accounts, provides the ability to place trading orders and close them with opposing orders, and, of course, to deposit assets into the exchange and withdraw them from it. The vast majority of cryptocurrency trading transactions and exchanges of cryptocurrencies for fiat are conducted on such classic centralized exchanges.

Naturally, any crypto-enthusiast starts to cringe at the mere word “centralized.” Moreover, these exchanges generally live up to their reputation: they are regularly hacked, with significant sums of money stolen from wallets, and there are complaints regarding possible market manipulation, fake volumes, and so on.

What is special about decentralized exchanges

Therefore, for several years, there has been a trend in the cryptocurrency community toward creating decentralized exchanges. At the very least, it is relatively easy to make an exchange hybrid: orders are processed on a central server, while private keys to the wallets remain in the hands of the users, and accordingly, all transactions are recorded on the blockchain. This is the principle on which, for example, Waves, the largest hybrid exchange in Russia, operates. But a question immediately arises: in which blockchain, specifically, should the transaction be recorded if I am buying, for example, ether with bitcoins?

What qualities must a blockchain possess to ensure the operation of a decentralized exchange? First, the blockchain must allow any tokens to be issued on its base. This is possible for the aforementioned Waves, Ethereum, and many others. Second, the blockchain must be as fast as possible. If blocks are written once every ten minutes, as with bitcoin, it’s not serious at all. The performance leaders today are blockchains based on the Graphene engine — from 3,000 operations per second, with new blocks written to the blockchain every three seconds. With such lags, one can already trade normally. Moreover, with such an engine, even exchange orders can be written to the blockchain, which means the possibility of creating not hybrid, but fully decentralized exchanges.

The oldest and most venerable Graphene blockchain is bitshares, but there are newer competitors, the full list of which is pointless to provide. I will only note the deex project, which is interesting for three things. First, based on the Graphene blockchain, not only a decentralized exchange is implemented, but also a decentralized messenger and a number of other tools. Second, its own network of ATMs is being launched, and bank cards are on the way. This, of course, no longer has anything to do with decentralization, but it has a huge impact on the convenience of the technology’s penetration into the masses. And third, one of the LPR members participates in the work on the project, and this is, of course, a strong reason to distinguish deex from the others.

And finally, about the downsides of decentralized exchanges

If you want to trade there using fiat, it won’t work directly. First, tokens corresponding to that fiat are purchased through a separate gateway, and then trading is conducted with them. As for how to exchange these tokens back into fiat — ask something easier. Perhaps the notorious deex will allow this in its ATMs, but in general, the problem is not solved. Therefore, the main niche for decentralized exchanges is the exchange of different types of crypto for one another.

As a result, volumes on decentralized exchanges are significantly lower, which means relatively low liquidity and a high spread.

And finally, high blockchain performance does not come for free. Instead of honest POW, as with bitcoin or ether, decentralized exchanges lean toward POS, as with Waves, or even DPOS, as with Graphene blockchains. Each new step that speeds up operation reduces the overall level of system decentralization, as it decreases the number of nodes verifying transactions.

So love the exchange traders; they take high risks — all so that we, simple users, don’t have to worry our heads with all these aforementioned high matters.

Especially since bitcoins for LPR-tyans can be transferred even from a regular bank card, without resorting to such complex tools as decentralized exchanges. Here, give it a try: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What do you think about Mikhail Pozharsky’s article

“The Conservative Owl and the Libertarian Globe”

anonymous question

I have already touched upon this topic approximately in the post dedicated to the dispute between Mikhail Svetov and Vera Kichanova.

Then I was asked to clarify Svetov’s position regarding borders with peaceful and prosperous countries—does he really propose closing off from them as well? I had to devise a logical twist that makes Svetov’s proposal relatively acceptable for a minarchist society, and quite universal in the sense that no official is given the right to rank countries: these ones are good, and we are welcome to no one from here.

Mikhail Pozharsky’s article from July 1st is clearly inspired by the same dispute, but he dug deeper, while also addressing Hoppe’s concept that the transition from monarchy to democracy is social regression and a departure from libertarian ideals. Of course, the democratic state is terrible, as is any other state, but the claim that autocracies are generally healthier reveals Hoppe to be a person not very familiar with life under an autocracy.

I would bring another party into this dispute—political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann, who has repeatedly mentioned in her presentations such a characteristic of society as the degree of citizen involvement in decision-making.

If we plot the volume of redistribution carried out by the state on one coordinate axis and the degree of citizen involvement in decision-making on another, and map existing states onto this grid, we will see that the resulting cloud of points is fairly uniform; that is, movement along each axis is generally quite independent. Therefore, both the demand for a reduction in state redistribution in the most direct democracy and the demand for the democratization of authoritarian states are equally justified. There is no need to necessarily link the reduction of taxes and regulations with a transition from democracy to authoritarianism; this assumption seems unfounded.

conservative owl

Raising the same topic for the third time, I begin to remind me of that very Ekaterina Schulmann, who also sings seemingly the same thing, but always in a different tune. And yes, here is my usual chorus about donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What, by the way, about the successes of libertarian parties in other countries? Do supporters from different countries communicate? They could share experience. And why is there no charismatic libertarian leader in the USA?

anonymous question

Of course, everyone has heard that the Libertarian Party in the USA is increasing its electoral success. Over 3% in the last presidential elections, occasionally appearing libertarian governors, senators, and congressmen—in short, a quite respectable and actively growing political force.
Why is there no charismatic libertarian leader in the USA? And why is there no charismatic Republican leader? For the exact same reason—the system is designed so that charismatic politicians achieve electoral success, while parties are led by capable administrators.

Do libertarians from different countries communicate? Yes, although not as actively as one would like. There are international forums, such as Liberticon, there are local conferences with foreign speakers, such as our Adam Smith Readings, and there are private contacts.

Why look far, when just recently a Kuzbass activist traveled to Poland, met with the libertarians there, and upon returning, posted a review text on how things are with the Poles.

Direct coordination of efforts between libertarian parties of different countries is not yet observed, so we make do with the exchange of ideas.

Gary Johnson, 2016 US presidential candidate from the Libertarian Party

And what about global warming?

I think it would be foolish to deny this phenomenon. The consequences of warming include the melting of glaciers and the flooding of lands, and consequently, the violation of property rights. Who should bear responsibility for this? And how can the market be used to prevent it?

anonymous question

For the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants, global warming is, of course, wonderful. History clearly shows that during periods of climatic optima (which is why they are called optima), it was far more comfortable for people to live than during periods of cooling: at the very least, they didn’t starve to death as actively.
However, for the inhabitants of the atolls of some Kiribati, warming provides no benefit, as it is already warm at the equator; instead, the rise in ocean levels is a very real problem.

So yes, indeed, some people benefit from certain climatic changes and others from different ones, and if climate change is anthropogenic, then those for whom this externality is negative have grounds to file a claim for damages against those involved in anthropogenic climate change.
Let’s imagine how this could be implemented under ancap, that is, in a free market system. A native of Kiribati goes on the internet, first looks for theoretical information about the industries contributing most to global warming, then finds specific companies operating in those industries, and then starts flooding them with lawsuits? It seems unrealistic. Too many competencies are required from the victim; it is too difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for damages. When the damage is finally calculated, it may easily turn out that the calculation cost more than the amount of compensation. What is left?

Only private charity remains. Eco-activists create hype by filming videos about unfortunate natives disappearing underwater. Companies and individual media personalities capitalize on the hype by creating a fund to help those affected by flooding. With the fund’s money, individual natives who wish to do so are solemnly helped, in front of cameras, to move somewhere to Hawaii, the Philippines, or the Solomon Islands, or are simply given money, with which they acquire a yacht and then decide for themselves which harbor to dock in. Voilà, everyone is happy, everyone profits, the market has solved it!

Kiribati

Well, you understand that the mention of private charity wasn’t just for nothing, right? How about chipping in for a yacht? 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8 

There is a rule in libertarianism that if there is no victim, there is no court. It turns out that it would be profitable for a bandit to destroy the entire family so that no victims remain. Something about this is wrong…

anonymous question

So, I live in my own house, and one of my neighbors killed another neighbor and his entire family. What happens to the price of my house because a dangerous psycho lives next door? It drops rapidly. Who am I after that? A victim.

In a situation where law is decentralized, your moral judgment can always become the basis for your actions. There is no one to forbid you from doing something, but the responsibility will be entirely yours.

If I have enough evidence of how my neighbor killed an entire family, and I kill him afterwards, then to whoever accuses me of this murder, I will show this evidence and explain that I had sufficient grounds to fear for my own life, as the deceased was far too unpredictable. And I’ll bring up the argument about the house price, just as a cherry on top.

And then we’ll see if I can make peace with the relatives and acquaintances of the deceased.

In the modern world, which is largely individualistic, moral evaluations of actions usually play a more significant role than kinship ties—after all, we no longer live in a clan society where the kin effectively acted as a single legal entity.

reconciliation of blood feud parties

Suppose there is a terminally ill person who cannot be saved in any way, and has a couple of weeks left. Would euthanasia be a violation of the NAP? Is his consent/the consent of his relatives needed for this?

anonymous question

Euthanasia is not a violation of the non-aggression principle; it is merely the execution of the owner’s instructions regarding the disposal of their own body. You commission one specialist to give you a haircut, another for a massage, a third for an abortion, a fourth to remove a kidney for transplant, and a fifth to kill you. These are all perfectly correct instructions. The only subtlety in the euthanasia procedure is to ensure that the instruction is indeed given voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences. Well, the sale of real estate requires the observance of exactly the same legal precautions, as does any other important and responsible transaction.

The situation becomes slightly more complex when a person lacks the technical ability to give instructions for their euthanasia, for instance, because they are in a coma. In this situation, the decision is made by the person paying for the life support. It is this person who has the full right at any moment to consider further expenses impractical—and to offer any willing party the chance to take over the further burden of costs. If no willing parties are found, then life will no longer be supported.

Finally, a situation is possible where a person is in a coma and an insurance company is paying for their life support. Here, the company does not have the right to refuse to fulfill its obligations at any moment. First, it must fully exhaust the insurance premium due to the person under the contract in attempts to restore the insured health, and only after failure can it stop spending the money. Any attempts by the heirs of the insured person to claim something like “unplug him from the machine, and we will receive the remainder of the insurance as an inheritance; our father, had he been conscious, would have commissioned you to do this himself,” are most logically regarded as incitement to murder for mercenary purposes.

For mercenary purposes, I incite you to make a voluntary donation to the development of this channel. Drop some money to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

You wrote that in the event that a child is subjected to domestic violence, a third party can only explain the child’s rights to them. But isn’t such treatment of children aggression? Why, in this case, are the actions of the parent/guardian not a violation of the NAP?

anonymous question

I wrote that an outsider can use the rich arsenal of peaceful resolution techniques with impunity, but applying violence or the threat of violence is at their own risk. If you see a fight, it would be appropriate to inquire whether it is a private fight before intervening. Similarly, upon seeing violence against a child, it is appropriate to ask the child if they need help. If there is no opportunity or desire to clarify this important point, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Yes, the guardian is using violence against the child and thereby violating the principle of non-aggression toward them. However, by manifesting aggression against the child’s guardian without the child’s sanction, you also violate the principle of non-aggression toward the child. And it is the child who will be the first one asked after this incident who exactly caused them harm. And you could very well turn out to be the one who caused that harm.

Your evidence regarding the extent of the violence against the child must be damn convincing for an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction both you and the child’s guardian recognize, to rule that guardianship rights should indeed transfer from the current guardian to another party wishing to obtain them, in a situation where the child does not demonstrate a desire to change guardians.

Does justice exist?

anonymous question

I would define justice as the outcome of a certain chain of events in which adherence to libertarian principles brought profit, and non-adherence brought loss.

People, as a rule, want to live in a just world. Since not all events in a person’s life are linked to their own efforts, they occasionally find themselves in a situation where completely irreproachable behavior leads to sad consequences. Various curious mechanisms, such as afterlife retribution, karma, and so on, are used as a means of psychological defense against such frustrations.

In other words, a person is free to arrange events into a chain in an arbitrary manner, and it is quite natural for them to do so in a way that the outcome of events in the chosen chain turns out to be just. Lived peacefully, suffered from an offender, continued to live peacefully, then a river carried the offender’s corpse past — justice prevailed. Lived peacefully, suffered from an offender, died. Now they will surely be rewarded for a righteous life, and justice, once again, will prevail.

So — yes, justice exists, and it exists in people’s heads. Just as the state and other mental constructs exist in people’s heads.

Although the value of bitcoins is completely subjective and exists only in people’s heads, the bitcoins themselves objectively exist in wallets. If you like the channel, rewarding the author with a donation would be perfectly just. Send it here: 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8