Автор: Анкап-тян

Rallies of July 29, results of the day

Today, 5,700 people attended the rally in Moscow. Before the rally began, the police prevented the banners from being mounted on the stage, and immediately after it ended, they detained the organizers.

The Kemerovo rally was also disrupted: the organizer was detained even before it started. They were released and given a summons for Tuesday, accused of illegal campaigning for an unauthorized action, although there had been a court decision ordering the action to be coordinated.

In Chelyabinsk, instead of an unauthorized rally, single-person pickets were held; activists were detained, their statements were taken, and then they were released.

In Yaroslavl and Rybinsk, it went without incident, but it wasn’t very crowded.
In other words, we are already being noticed, but not yet feared.

It was already clear that the April rally for Telegram was a great stroke of luck: they managed to apply before everyone else, received approval, and interested Durov.

Now it is clear that against the general backdrop of protest, when literally every social movement is holding its own action, it will not be possible to stand out as brightly. And many continue to believe that the intensification of state robbery is, for some reason, not their business.

Anyway, politics is not just occasional super-efforts, but also routine work. We will continue to convey our ideas.

Rally in Moscow

Update. The organizers of the Moscow rally have been released; they are charged with violating the rules for conducting mass events, court date is August 2

Why is the LPR not cooperating with the Confederation of Labour of Russia on the issue of pension reform?

anonymous question

I believe it is for roughly the same reason that the Confederation of Labor of Russia does not cooperate with the LPR on the issue of pension reform. Each of the organizations has a large enough number of allies to organize protest actions independently, and the inevitable friction caused by significantly different approaches to the style of the actions would create more difficulties than advantages from cooperation.

There is one more point. It is never known in advance which action will be approved by the authorities, which will be sent to the outskirts of the city, or banned altogether. Therefore, it is more reliable if applications come from a wide variety of organizations.

At the same time, libertarians attend rallies organized by the confederation; usually, no one drives them away or forces them to roll up their posters. Similarly, members of various left-wing movements attend rallies organized by the conditional liberal wing of the opposition.

Putin has not yet succeeded in achieving the unification of the opposition, but now he is closer to it than ever.

In the photo, members of the LPR at a trade union rally on June 16 in Novosibirsk

You can donate bitcoins for the needs of the channel here: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

On what principle will no-man’s land be privatized? Will there be democratic voting among the former population of this state to allocate land by majority vote, or will the principle of “whoever cultivated it first, the land is theirs” actually be applied?

anonymous question

I have already been asked on what principle nuclear bombs will be privatized, but with this low-liquidity commodity, things are indeed different, because off the top of my head, I can think of only two useful applications for a nuclear bomb specifically as a bomb, and both boil down to burying it deep in the ground in the right place—and blowing it up. First, this would make it possible to register seismic vibrations at different points on the planet and use them to refine information about its structure. Second, this allows for the release of seismic tension in seismically hazardous areas, so that instead of rare large earthquakes, there will be a series of frequent small ones.

But anyway, the question is about land. Land, unlike a nuclear bomb, has a vast number of useful applications, and therefore competition for it can be quite substantial.

Privatization scenarios will, of course, differ greatly depending on how great the mentioned competition is in a specific case, and how developed the mechanisms of self-governance are in that location.

Where competition is lower, homesteading is more likely. Whoever hustle first takes the best plot. Whoever is a bit later takes the adjacent one. The latecomers take a couple more, and the rest figure that they won’t get the cream of the crop here and go look elsewhere.

Where competition is high and local self-governance is weak, the plot will be seized by the first person to hustle, and then a stronger subject will arrive and declare: dude, you’ve gotten too arrogant, get the hell off my field right now! The arrogant dude will haggle a bit to save face, perhaps receive symbolic compensation—and get the hell out.

And where lawlessness has long been eradicated by the local community, the most likely scenario is the hiring of an auctioneer, who will prepare the land lots for sale, conduct an auction, and then distribute the proceeds, minus their own commission, among all the local residents who also claimed the land but were not ready to pay too much for it.

The scenario you mentioned—”let’s democratically vote on who gets a tasty piece of the pie for free, which any of us is smart enough to want as private property”—seems less likely to me: if I receive no compensation, why on earth would I agree to vote for someone else? In such a vote, it is most logical for everyone to vote for themselves, and this would lead to the need to form a joint-stock company with equal shares for the voting participants. Then, the person who needs it more will gradually buy out the shares of those who need it less, and we will arrive at the same model as simply selling the plot as a single lot with subsequent compensation to the losing participants.

Dividing the pie

Look at that, Bitcoin is on the rise again! That’s what life-giving competition for rare resources does! Now, of course, donations from you have become slightly less likely, but just in case: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

A statist in the eye, or to become a leftist once?

anonymous question

Despite the playful nature of the question, it is easy to see that it contains a very serious and interesting hint at the kinship between libertarian and AUE ideologies. Nuacho — in both cases, there is a sharp rejection of cooperation with the state and their own clear system of concepts regarding ethics and law — in short, thanks for noticing 🍴

Nevertheless, despite fairly aggressive anarchist rhetoric, a libertarian is mostly quite unobtrusive in their actions toward the state. There is no talk of the violent overthrow of the state at all, because Koschei’s death is not in the palace — the state must first be expelled from the head.

In current reality, the state rarely presents a person with the specified dilemma in advance. More often, it simply pokes, so to speak, the statist in the eye for an unenthusiastic mindset, manifestations of which include, for example, reposting something oppositional. A person in such a situation usually tries to change their environment to a less toxic one as quickly as possible — for instance, several party members of mine fled abroad to avoid state sanctions.
But if the dilemma is posed directly and harshly — for example, put your signature here under a harmful statist decision, or we will initiate a case for such-and-such contrived violations — then libertarian ideology does not dictate any rigid guidelines to the person. Decide for yourself, bear the responsibility yourself; the mindfulness of actions is more important than dogmatic adherence to a single correct teaching. Imagine what will change if you don’t sign, and whose life will worsen if you do. Weigh your personal costs, consider which course of action you personally will regret more — and act. Other libertarians may perceive this act differently. There is no directive stating that if you’ve gone leftist once, you’re a leftist forever. If you caused harm to people — you can agree on compensation. But there is also no reverse directive that self-interest is a justification for any bullshit. It doesn’t matter if it’s a mortgage; that’s no reason to go “over there” to Donbas.

What’s up, boys, AUE?

Donations in bitcoins, bypassing the banking system, is a viable way to avoid a statist “zashkvar” even by the strictest standards, so feel free to send money: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

How do you feel about Saakashvili?

anonymous question

Saakashvili is not a libertarian, but he provided political cover for Bendukidze’s libertarian reforms, which is why he earned the respect of the entire global libertarian community.

He is a lawyer, like Putin, but treats current norms and procedures with much greater respect; therefore, he acknowledged his party’s defeat in fair parliamentary elections and stepped down peacefully. This was a risky move; specifically, he and his party colleagues were subsequently subjected to political persecution, and some even to criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, during his rule, public sentiment changed so significantly that now, in this parliamentary democracy, ministers resign under the pressure of public opinion, as in any decent European country. And this is the merit not of Bendukidze, but of Saakashvili himself.

It would be strange not to mention Saakashvili’s Ukrainian epic. He didn’t succeed there. But no one did. He was far from the only foreigner attracted by the prospects that opened up for the country after the Revolution of Dignity, and all of them, after some time, were pushed out of Ukraine, whether softly or harshly. So I would not hold this failure against him: Saakashvili is not a magician, but simply a clever market-oriented person who respects the rule of law, is skilled in both administration and street activism, but is not very adapted to weaving bureaucratic intrigues.

It would be great to invite him to speak at the Adam Smith Readings. While the venue was provided by HSE, such an opportunity did not exist, but now I have more room to maneuver.

Mikheil Saakashvili

For more room to maneuver, the girl could use some bitcoins: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Is it realistic for your boyfriend to become the president of Russia? Maybe he already knows how he will achieve this, and what he will campaign for?

anonymous question

If nothing changes in the electoral legislation, he will have to run as a self-nominated candidate. This means collecting 300 thousand signatures for nomination across numerous regions within completely ridiculous timeframes. Even Navalny at the beginning of the year might have found this task insurmountable, though he wasn’t even given the chance to try.

Even if my numbers continue to grow at the previous rate of 100% per year for all six years, by the next presidential election they will amount to 32 thousand people. This is a perfectly sufficient number of volunteers for a campaign, but to finance it, the number of active supporters around this core needs to be increased by about ten times.

It is unrealistic to gather such resources entirely on our own. The task becomes more feasible if my boyfriend runs as a single opposition candidate based on the results of primaries across the entire liberal front. Paradoxically, there is a chance here, because the greater the dissatisfaction with the authorities, the higher the chances for radical candidates, while the more moderate ones will have to step aside.
So, to nominate a libertarian candidate for President of the RF, I just need to become the most prominent of the liberal opposition parties, and perhaps a small “dream-crusher” machine.

As for the question of what to campaign for, no maneuvers are needed here: exactly for the same libertarian values as now.

Everyone chip in for the “dream-crusher” machine quickly! 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Yes, right here

Libertarian orders will probably not be here for some time, and (few believe that they are) true. But does the DPR have any goals closer and more understandable to the people, the achievement of which would yield a tangible result?

anonymous question

I apologize in advance if the text seems a bit mundane, but that’s always the case with immediate goals.

Currently, all opposition parties are utilizing the government’s aggressive policies to convert people’s dissatisfaction into their own influence. Therefore, I currently have two immediate tasks.

First, to organize protest actions throughout the country, or at least in Moscow, that are no worse than those of RB-chan. April 30th with Telegram went well; July 29th should be just as successful. This is a demonstration of organizational muscle, a push for the influx of new people and finances into the party, as well as an excellent start for my candidates in Vnukovo and Kokoshkino.

Second, to hold the Adam Smith Readings in November on a new organizational level — the old cozy format has stopped accommodating everyone who wants to attend. It is not enough to simply get hold of a crowd of dissatisfied people; it is important to give them an understanding of libertarianism. I am also looking for ways to make the format of regional educational conferences, which are currently held under the “Many-Faced Freedom” brand, more effective. For example, in August in Novosibirsk, it will be expanded to two days and conducted in a more festival-like format — I suspect that values are better absorbed in more free communication.

But perhaps in your question, you didn’t mean what I am doing for my own development, but what I am doing for real changes in the country. The most noticeable thing here is the initiative to abolish the transport tax — for now in Moscow, then the experience can be transferred to the regions. Each of my municipal deputies also has their own goals, of which there are only three so far, but this autumn their number will likely increase, with your help. These are outlined in their programs; I won’t overload the post with details.

To summarize, wherever I gain significant organizational capacity, I organize pressure on the government toward the abolition of levies and the deregulation of the economy. If we recall the famous example of cannibalism in the description of how the Overton window works, I am currently at the stage of “experts talk about the numerous positive effects of cannibalism, minorities protest for the decriminalization of the phenomenon” — agree that this is already a fairly significant shift from the complete tabooing of the topic.

I publish the address of my bitcoin wallet here every time: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

I should probably say what I want to do with this money first. First, I want a new little dress. I’ve been told repeatedly that for a chan I’m not anime enough, and this whim, in general, is not hard to fulfill, and not expensive. Second, I’m thinking about a video blog.

Has really no one asked yet what you are doing at rallies against raising the retirement age?

anonymous question

I attend them, I speak at them, I even organize them📣.

But the question should probably be understood not literally, but rather in this formulation: why does a libertarian party, which wishes to abolish the state pension system entirely, oppose the state raising the retirement age?

The answer is quite obvious. There are no state funds, there are only taxpayers’ funds. If raising the retirement age were accompanied by a reduction in social contributions, I might even welcome it, provided the reduction was significant enough. But instead, the government is simply extending the time during which it intends to rob people, thereby reducing their ability to invest money according to their own choice—what is good about that from a libertarian perspective?

Let’s take the extreme cases. The amount of social contributions remains unchanged, and the retirement age is infinity. In other words, a person pays social contributions their entire life but never receives a pension. Obviously, this is less fair than the current situation; essentially, it is an increase in personal income tax from 13% to 13+22=35%. The second extreme case: social contributions remain the same, and the retirement age is zero. In other words, a person receives a pension from birth without paying a penny to the state. Since the state has no money of its own, only taxpayers’ money, it is obvious that in this case the pension will be zero. And that is exactly what the libertarian party is striving for. Consequently, it is in our interest to strive for a reduction in the retirement age, a reduction in social contributions, or both, but by no means to agree to an increase in age while taxes remain unchanged.

Come to the rally organized by the LPR in Moscow on July 29! All details are on the website No to Robbery!

I have said it many times and will not tire of repeating it: one of the best investment tools for old age is Bitcoin. I would be happy to accept donations in this currency to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8—but if you save them for your own retirement instead, that would also be great.

How do you feel about the libertarian videoblogger Egor Zhukov? He runs the channel “Zhukov’s Blog” and recently made a video about protest strategy.

anonymous question

I recently already answered about my attitude toward the vlogger Svetov; it seems that over time, I will need to answer regarding all more or less prominent libertarian figures.

Zhukov is quite reasonable in his ideas, but their presentation is not strong enough. Simple editing, fast speech, a general impression of cheapness — unfortunately, this reflects on the overall impression. Navalny or Svetov look more respectable. Alas, such details matter to the viewer.

His latest video, about Scandinavian socialism, is already quite solid, so the person is growing, and that is encouraging.

Regarding the series of videos on protest strategy specifically, it seems to me that he pays excessively much attention to analyzing others’ successes or failures, and while reproaching other protest organizers for a lack of creativity, he himself provides almost no examples. In essence, he is remembered only by one specific proposal — the “Flowers for the Police” action, but for some reason he didn’t analyze the results of this action, which would have been informative.
So, the main shortcoming of Zhukov, as with Svetov, seems to me to be that they are not the strongest team players, and within the framework of solo projects, their ceiling will be reached sooner or later.

Well, at least not against a carpet background…

Hmm. I should take a look in the mirror here…

I look in the mirror and see: experience working in the DemoCoalition in 15-16, experience cooperating with Navalny’s headquarters, Open Russia, Golos, and other organizations in a wide variety of regions — okay, I seem to know how to work in a team. If Russia becomes a parliamentary republic, perhaps I can even make it into a coalition government.

And there is already a small community around this channel — after all, LPR-tyan’s posts are not just answers, but also questions, and they are asked by engaged readers.

Well, cheers to the feedback! Bitcoins are welcome: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What happened with Crimea in March 2014—is it legal or illegal, good or bad?

anonymous question

What happened to Crimea in March 2014 was the seizure by one state of part of the territory of another state. Theoretically, such a seizure can lead to either a benefit or, conversely, a loss for the residents of the seized territory. Off the top of my head, I can recall only one precedent where the residents of a territory severed from another state now live wealthier and freer than the residents of the state from which the territory was severed. This refers to Texas, severed from Mexico. As for the territories that the Soviet Union took from its neighbors, all of them now live poorer than the countries from which the territories were severed. Moldova is poorer than Romania, the Kaliningrad region is poorer than Germany, Karelia is poorer than Finland… So history is not on the side of the residents of Crimea, although it is still too early to assess all the consequences of the reconfiguration of state borders for Crimeans.

However, there are also, imagine that, the residents of the Russian Federation itself, and the annexation of Crimea has already made them noticeably poorer, and there are no prospects for a reversal of this process.

Please note that in my analysis I absolutely do not touch upon international law and other interstate complications, because the problems of bandits don’t fuck honest people and shouldn’t. If Russia were minarchist, and the Crimeans had asked to move from socialist Ukraine to a freer Russian jurisdiction, I would have warmly welcomed the Crimeans’ decision—provided, of course, that they were ready to pay for the services they purchased—while the Ukrainian government’s attempts to refer to the sacred right to personally rob its serfs would have been met with a contemptuous “pffft.” But in our case, we are talking about two equally wretched bandits, and I can only hope that they both drop dead, choking on Crimea.

So you look at it—and you wouldn’t say it’s a disaster zone

I hope the answer was unconventional enough; honestly, I’m tired of all the legalists jumping around with papers about what one bandit once promised another bandit. I will gladly accept a reward in unconventional currency to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8