I do not believe in a bright future for any state. It is an archaic form of social organization, incapable of satisfying people’s demand for justice and security, yet requiring the forced seizure of a vast amount of resources from people for its functioning.
Alternatives to the state in various fields are known, theoretically developed, and have both historical and currently operating analogues. Trust in the state is steadily declining worldwide. So what bright future can there be for this dinosaur? Let’s bury it and dance!
Dancing fossils look good on screen, but not on the street
In particular, in the area of money, an alternative to the state has been known since 2009, and that is bitcoin, which will certainly soon bury dinosaurs such as state central banks. I gladly accept donations in this currency to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
This kind of rules are developed in precisely an anarchic way. There was no state on the roads when the first cars appeared, and when there were enough of them for a need for interaction rules to arise. Which side to drive on, how to yield to each other at intersections, how to best mark the roads — all this began to emerge even before the state intruded upon the roads.
It was only later that the state placed traffic controllers at intersections, and then traffic lights, thereby giving birth to traffic jams. It was only later that the state began to set speed limits and fine those who exceeded them. And finally, it was the state that built a vast number of highways at the taxpayers’ expense, creating non-market competition for many other ways of moving.
People easily create spontaneous order in any situation when they truly need it, and they solidify successful practices so as not to rediscover them every time, for laziness and egoism are the best harmonizers of society. Even under ideal conditions, the state is capable of creating only a passable crutch for such spontaneous order, and trying to beat with a stick everyone who sabotages the use of the crutch.
What are you staring at? Take the crutch and get going!
Also, anarchy created bitcoins, which can be used for donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Misha has greatly expanded my circle of supporters, and this naturally influenced my personal views and values, so yes, I share them for the most part.
What parts of his agenda can I not fully agree with?
First, there is a whole series of claims about what a party should be. He is very afraid of a corporate raid, and therefore wants to introduce something like taxpayers’ democracy within it, with a vertical structure. I am more often afraid of it turning into a gutted bureaucratic structure, so I usually practice decentralization in decision-making and private initiatives.
Secondly, he has controversial claims regarding, for example, what is more dangerous in modern states — open borders or closed ones (he believes open ones are more dangerous). It is clear that state borders as such are dangerous, but to view a state border as almost a collective private property is some kind of strange selective trust in the state.
Thirdly, he introduced some concepts into common usage that are unconventional for libertarianism, such as “communities,” which smell more of sour cabbage than of freedom. Now he more often replaces this word with the term “contractual jurisdictions,” but it still implicitly follows from his words that under libertarianism, a person has one single jurisdiction for all occasions in life, which is categorically not necessary. In general, this is a case where his personal conservatism, it seems to me, slightly permeates the ideology.
What I also deeply regret is that other libertarians are not particularly promoted through the SVTV channel. There was Pozharsky — then Pozharsky was gone. There was Bazhenov — then Bazhenov was gone. In fact, all the co-hosts are gone, and it was a very good, unobtrusive way of demonstrating new faces to the public. But Misha is not the strongest team player. Perhaps that is exactly why he would prefer the party to have an organizational vertical, so as not to negotiate, but simply to give orders.
Thank you for reading me; my guest was Mikhail Svetov, a member of the LPR FC. Like, subscribe to the channel, and send bitcoins if you like what I do. 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8 Until next time!
With judges and courts under ancap, not only will nothing be difficult—it will be much simpler than it is now.
Currently, one must perform a multitude of strange ritualistic gestures just so the monopolist condescends to review a request and decide something, and these processes drag on insanely long; very often, both litigating parties end up as victims in fact, while only all sorts of intermediaries benefit from the procedure. The majority of disputes under ancap will resemble modern commercial arbitration: when establishing certain relations, the parties decide in advance whom they trust to resolve their conflicts, and then, having sought a court, voluntarily execute its decision.
In situations where the parties, while establishing relations, do not fully trust each other’s integrity, they can immediately deposit a sufficiently large sum each, granting the arbitrator the right to deduct a penalty from the deposit in favor of the party to whom that penalty is awarded after the conflict is resolved.
An indispensable condition of a court is the voluntary consent of the parties to execute any of its decisions in advance. Forcible summons to court, as well as the forcible execution of a court sentence, is simply ritualized retribution.
Will there be an institution of such retribution under ancap? Yes, it is quite likely there will be.
Imagine that Bob caused some damage to Alice and disappeared. Alice hires detectives and establishes who caused the damage, after which she seeks judgment from persons who are, in her opinion, sufficiently authoritative: what compensation she could forcibly seize from Bob. The court examines the evidence and becomes convinced that the damage was indeed caused by Bob, then decides what compensation would be appropriate, and Alice, with the court decision in hand, begins to seize Bob’s property. The more authoritative the court Alice turned to is for those guarding Bob’s property, the easier it will be for her to achieve the seizure. Sooner or later, Alice receives her compensation, rewards everyone who helped her, and with that, her claims against Bob are exhausted (though he may still have claims against her, since the conflict between Alice and Bob was not settled amicably).
Finally, it may happen that Alice demands Bob’s head as compensation rather than property. Then, if the court recognizes her demand as justified, she, with this decision in hand, begins to hire bounty hunters, setting a reward for Bob’s head. They will be all the more willing to sign up for this work the larger the reward and the more authoritative the judge is for them. And here it will be in Bob’s interest to find Alice and try to reconcile with her (killing Alice may not be enough, as it would not cancel the contract on his head).
A bullet to the head can be accidental. A gun pointed at you might turn out to be a prop…
Every day, people perform (and will continue to perform under ancap conditions) many actions that someone might interpret as a violation of the non-aggression principle, or as an immediate threat of such a violation. Whether a certain action was a violation of the NAP is decided, firstly, ex post facto, and secondly, by far more people than just those involved in the incident. This is precisely why it is impossible to establish a clear criterion that defines in advance, once and for all, what constitutes a NAP violation. One can only point out that, in general, the person whose property is damaged has more grounds to oppose it than others, and it would be no surprise if they claimed compensation for the damage.
As for the case of a person you cannot get rid of and who constantly interferes, they are usually tolerated, but seeking ways to alleviate the situation would be quite appropriate. After all, people have even learned how to separate Siamese twins, and this seems like a relatively straightforward case by comparison.
This one on the left is clearly not thrilled with the one on the right
If the land was owned by the warehouse owner, then it, of course, like other remaining property, must go toward the partial compensation for damages to the neighbors. If any of the neighbors wish to receive their share in kind, it will be necessary to deal with and conduct a land survey; however, if everyone agrees to money, there will be fewer problems, and the plot can be divided into lots of arbitrary configuration for ease of sale.
Tianjin
I am glad if this simple consultation helped you. It is best to express gratitude in monetary form: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Dad has his opinion, mom has hers, you have yours, and I have mine. As long as I am actually dependent on my parents, it makes sense for you and me to be interested in their opinions on such matters. Once I stop being dependent, seeking their opinion can only be done for the purpose of building a friendly relationship with them.
And if they don’t agree with each other, then they can figure it out between themselves somehow.
But there is another possibility. You asked my opinion about hooking up, I’m for it. You asked Dad’s, he’s also for it. You asked Mom’s, she’s against it. We decide to ignore Mom’s opinion, and she shoots you in the back of the head for your lack of understanding. Now, when the court hearing happens, Mom will depend on the judge’s opinion regarding the permissibility of her actions, but you will already be indifferent to that.
no mom jokes here!
By the way, the appearance of a permanent source of income brings forward the date of a girl’s emancipation from her parents, so give girls bitcoins 😏 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Someone who values things made with soul more will, all other things being equal, prefer that which is made with soul.
But in general, claiming that something made with soul is more expensive is incorrect. Perhaps the master who worked with soul sees a kindred spirit in the buyer and sells it cheaper. Perhaps a soulless thing is released under an expensive fashion brand. Perhaps something made with soul requires unique spare parts, while standard stamping is cheaper to maintain. In other words, there are countless factors influencing value, and highlighting only one of them as the leading one serves didactic purposes rather than demonstrating a practical regularity.
What could be more precious than a kitty made with soul?
I wouldn’t refuse soulless bitcoins, by the way 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
As everyone who has read anything on economic theory knows, Robinson was damn lonely without Friday: there was no one to practice the division of labor with, and without the division of labor, economic growth is extremely difficult. Who, one might ask, is Robinson supposed to demonstrate the benefits of trade to—under conditions of both relative and absolute comparative advantage in labor productivity—if there is no peaceful, cooperative savage at hand?
No way, a decade of forced juche on a deserted island would convince even a Korean communist that autarky is a bad idea, let alone a representative of a trading nation.
Here it is, the turtle upon which all the popularization of economic theory stands!
Bitcoin is the one thing without which Robinson is especially lonely on a deserted island, and it’s also the best gift for a girl. 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Mises, in creating the theory of money, formulated the regression theorem, according to which the current value of money is determined by its yesterday’s value, and this can be traced back to the moment when money was an ordinary commodity having only simple consumer value.
The fact that gold specifically became the single standard for backing money by the 20th century was the result of government regulations; prior to that, a bimetallic standard had taken hold in a free banking system, which is described in sufficient detail by the aforementioned Rothbard.
Another libertarian classic, Hayek, openly advocated for private money…
Thus, bitcoin, acting as digital peer-to-peer gold, does not contradict economic theory as presented by both the classics of the Austrian School of Economics and their modern followers.
And yes, it is high time to donate a few bitcoins to the development of the channel: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
