Автор: Анкап-тян

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

How do libertarians view urbanism? It is clear that they do so differently, but are there any common points? I have heard much negativity from members of the LPR towards the projects of Varlamov and Katz.

anonymous question

Mainstream urbanism is a concept according to which cities should be developed using methods of centralized planning, but this planning should be carried out not by some lobbyists, but by experts based on current scientific research. Urbanists are hardly bothered by the fact that present-day scientific developments may contradict those of the past. After all, it is a quite common occurrence when every subsequent electrician who comes to fix the wiring first asks into the void which idiot did the wiring before him.

Naturally, libertarians can conceptually approve only urbanism based on economic theory—in other words, on the idea that the market should not be hindered from solving truly complex issues, such as ensuring spontaneous order in a large city, which is precisely what it is best at.
Thus, libertarian urbanism is the maximum privatization of all public spaces in the city and the maximum deregulation of interaction between the owners of urban spaces.

Supporting preferred initiatives through voluntary donations is precisely an example of spontaneous order at work, where those projects that best satisfy the desires of consumers flourish. You know what to do:  1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Please provide the Russian article title you would like me to translate.

The second hundred subscribers came along unexpectedly quickly; all it took was one repost in the St. Petersburg LPR channel. LPR started in St. Petersburg, and this branch is still one of the most original; thank you, guys, and good luck with your development!

I celebrated the anniversary by finishing the tags and images in old posts up until the bot broke on July 1st—nothing further back in history will be edited.

As your likes show, the most popular posts are those about tyans and Misha Svetov, but at the same time, tyans gather fewer dislikes. Tyans rule!

St. Petersburg rules!

How does libertarianism view participation in certain projects organized by the city administration (youth movements, for example). After all, on one hand it is the government, but on the other, it is municipal government… And it’s somehow unclear.

anonymous question

Libertarianism views taxes with suspicion because they are robbery. But once taxes have already been seized, and it was impossible to prevent this, and they cannot be returned in the form of money, there is nothing shameful about receiving partial compensation for the damage by consuming some of the tangible goods provided by the authorities.

If we are talking about the possibility of cooperating with local authorities on certain projects, then one must first look at the effect this joint activity has on third parties. If it involves the infringement of their rights, then cooperation with the authorities is shameful. For example, participating in some Orthodox patrol that demands adherence to Orthodox moral norms from passers-by would be shameful. There seems to be no damage to reputation from participating in charity under the patronage of local authorities, provided it is not a PR cover for some embezzlement. However, any military-patriotic theme is a literal minefield; one must think carefully about every step, where it is worth cooperating and where it is not.

And in any case, such things cannot have a higher priority than resisting state robbery and other forms of violence.

organized youth is always very strange…

Let’s say my property (whether it be a cow, or perhaps just an ordinary ball) ends up on my neighbor’s plot, but we have concluded no agreements for such cases. Can the neighbor in such a case take my ball, kill my cow?

anonymous question

To begin with, the neighbor must be prepared to prove that it was not he who stole the ball or the cow, but that it landed on his land on its own. Then, he must be prepared to prove that the landing of a foreign object on his property caused him damage. And finally, he must be prepared to prove that he did not know and had no simple ways of finding out who owned the object, and therefore considered the appropriation of the object as the most logical way to compensate for the damage, rather than approaching the owner of the object with a demand for compensation.

The title of ownership to an object does not transfer from one subject to another simply because the object changed location. But, of course, in a situation where it is unknown whose cow grazed on someone else’s plot for two years, managed to calve, and then the owner of the cow appears, the owner of the plot would probably be able to justify his rights to the calf. Similarly, if the owner of a ball comes to claim it after a week, the owner of the ball is unlikely to be entitled to demand rental payment for the fact that the ball was used to play football.

Trespassers will be shot

I’m a kun. I’ve been in the party for over 6 months, but still no tyan. How do I romance a little libertarian tyan?

anonymous question

I feel your pain, bro!

The hardest part about romancing a libertarian girl is actually finding one. If you already have someone in mind, ninety percent of the task is done. After that, you just need to study her consumer preferences and understand at what cost you will be able to satisfy them… no.
Of course, describing such things in the language of economics would be wrong.

I can assume that if the girl is a libertarian, she will appreciate how well your libertarian rhetoric matches your actual actions. How you keep your agreements. How you respect self-ownership—especially, of course, her self-ownership. How economically independent you are. How ready you are to accept her cultural agenda.

Having common interests will help a lot, and if you don’t have any yet, the ability to present your own attractively or sincerely engage in hers. Nothing brings libertarians together like the joint achievement of complex, interesting goals.

But, most likely, you won’t find a ready-made libertarian girl within a reasonable timeframe and reasonable vicinity, and you’ll have to indoctrinate whichever girl comes your way. To increase your chances of success, pay attention to those who tend to use logical argumentation in disputes, love reading long-form articles, and don’t too actively project to the outside world that everyone in life owes them something.

How can party membership help with all this? Well, unless your local branch organizes various team-building events. Involving girls in them eases indoctrination, but increases the probability that the girl will find a more interesting libertarian, and in fair competition, the market will decide.

Romanced her and won’t let go

Misha Svetov’s position is that borders should be closed, but will this apply to developed countries like the USA, EU, Japan, etc.? With them, it is actually profitable to have the easiest borders possible.

anonymous question

As I have already written, in the dispute between Svetov and Kichanova, I am more on the girl’s side, but I generally understand Misha’s position, and I think I will be able to clarify the issue that concerns you.

Mikhail defends the visa regime as a protection of freedom of association. That is, entry for anyone is prohibited by default (this is a manifestation of the freedom not to associate), but if there is an invitation from a citizen of the country, the visa must be issued unconditionally; otherwise, this is again a violation of the freedom of association. The inviter shares responsibility for the behavior of the invitee along with the invitee themselves—this is a standard institution of suretyship. Thus, the right to decide who to let into the country and who not to let in is held not by an official, but by a specific citizen, and he is the one accountable to other citizens for how he exercised this right.

I don’t recall Mikhail publicly stating his position exactly in this form, but this seems to me the only interpretation that does not contradict libertarianism. In general, such rules of access to the territory of a country would not be shameful for even a state that has firmly set itself on the path of minarchist reforms to adopt as a temporary solution.

awaiting suretyship

Who will you choose: a tyan or a kun?

anonymous question

Murmur! A series of cute questions about personal relationships has started! I’ll answer with pleasure.

I am very, very much lacking tyans. In the best case, they make up about ten percent of the total roster.

Tyans rarely interest themselves in firearms. This is a terrible, unforgivable mistake! With your own shotgun, you’ll be the star at any shooting range, and with your own carbine at 23, you’ll strike any kun dead without any violation of the NAP, so get your first gun right at 18.

Tyans rarely interest themselves in bitcoins. They can actually be understood here: because even under the new law, a tyan will retire a couple of years earlier than a kun, which means her bitcoins won’t grow as much. But, girls, why be so petty?

Tyans rarely interest themselves in economics. It’s terrible, but it’s true. You’d think it’s forgivable for a kun to think that money is bred in a bedside table, but we should know about all these matters much more fully. Girls, fuck the etatist mainstream, study the Austrian school of economics—there’s none of that nasty, nasty mathematics!

But the strangest thing is that tyans rarely interest themselves in politics. You should have heard how Yabloko-tyan lit up the stage at the rally on July 29! The whole square just melted!

Politics is kawaii.

This is the kind of tyan that’s missing

Yes, you’ve noticed that now you can donate bitcoins to me not only by a direct transfer to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8, but also simply via bank card? Everything for you!

Got anything?

Guys, I’m very glad that you read and like my posts, but I want to remind you: the only thing that allows me to regularly delight you with new texts is that you ask questions. I don’t make them up myself.

Ask about things that interest you. Ask about things that you think will be interesting to others. Ask just for fun—sometimes strange questions can lead to damn successful answers.

Love you all!

I am a girl, and I’ve fallen in love with you, LPR-chan; how will protection against homophobia work under ancap?

anonymous question

That’s so sweet! ❤️

Protection from homophobia isn’t necessary. Anyone has the right to be afraid of us, since we’re so scary. Protection is needed from violence. When we choose an insurance plan, we’ll need to mention that we’re in a same-sex union; perhaps the insurance will be a bit more expensive. But if we wear a badge with the insurance company’s logo and a built-in tracker, there should be a discount. If we get weapons, the discount will increase.

Of course, the rate will become absolutely ridiculous if we choose the right neighborhood to live in, but those are capital investments, and we need to look closer—such paranoia might not pay off. On the other hand, the atmosphere there is friendlier, which is even more important than saving on premiums. Regular medical check-ups, first aid courses, and other ways to save on the insurance price—well, if we aren’t too lazy; most likely, we’ll manage without them.

And once we’re strolling together, having taken all these measures—then why should we, as ancaps, care? Let the homophobes be afraid; it’s very funny 👩‍❤️‍👩

Ancap insurance is the best remedy for fear! Of course, for this, you need ancap money. Send money here: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8