Автор: Анкап-тян

If the state is destroyed, corporations will take its place, won’t they?

Anonymous question

A lot here depends on what you put into the concept of “the state.”

If we are talking about who will become the new provider of the services that the state currently provides, then yes, of course, who if not corporations would take their place. Private companies are already successfully competing with state ones in the markets of medicine, education, pension provision, the creation of technical standards, and much more—effectively any market-demanded services that the state does not explicitly usurp.

As for those functions over which the state tries to usurp a monopoly—establishing arbitrary rules in a certain territory, forcibly redistributing property, and so on—then illegal criminal groups will take the place of the state here. In essence, the state currently differs from them only by legality. It is this very crutch that I want to kick out from under it.

In this regard, many people ask: will crime increase if one of the criminal groups loses its dominant status? History tells us that it could either increase or decrease. If we destroy the state for the sake of the sacred right of barons to uncontrollably plunder villeins, then crime will increase. If we destroy the state for the sake of the sacred right of citizens to uncontrollably own property, then crime will decrease. The devil is in the details: not only the state of the environment is important, but also the ideas that guide the actions of the people living in that environment.

bad, bad corporation!

Petya killed Vanya

Petya killed Vanya. Petya is on trial. During the trial, it is revealed that Vanya was a serial killer. By killing him, Petya eliminated a violator of the NAP and saved many lives. The problem is that Petya had no idea about his victim’s sins—Petya is simply a scumbag and a murderer.

Should we condemn Petya for murder or acquit him because Vanya violated the NAP?

In other words, at what point does a violator of the NAP exit the NAP—at the moment the crime is committed, or when a third party finds out about it?

In this problem, we are operating within the zone of libertarian law.

Evgeny Kvasov

Elevating the NAP to the rank of the primary principle of libertarianism leads to many disagreements and linguistic monstrosities, such as “violation of the moral NAP,” “I didn’t enter into a NAP with you,” or “exiting the NAP.” People perceive the non-aggression principle as something like a contract that can be entered into, terminated, and supplemented with additional conditions.

It is far more convenient to derive everything directly from the basic axiom of libertarianism—the axiom of self-ownership. Petya killed Vanya, thereby infringing upon Vanya’s private property—Vanya’s body. It does not matter whether Petya was a bounty hunter for the “Sonechko” insurance company hunting Vanya, a former contractor for the Moscow Kingdom, or a drunkard who killed a stranger for a sideways glance, or even if Petya was defending himself from Vanya’s attack. In any case, Petya damaged someone else’s property, and he must now be prepared to bear responsibility for it.

If someone is found who wants to, or is contractually obligated to, deal with Vanya’s killer, then Petya will have to either fight back or try to reach an agreement—either amicably or in court.

According to the conditions of the problem, Petya agreed to a trial. In the trial, in our case, it is revealed that Vanya in no way encroached upon Petya, and Petya was not acting on behalf of those to whom Vanya had previously caused harm. This means that there was a violation of the NAP on Petya’s part, and the plaintiff—for example, Vanya’s insurance company—can demand compensation. It also emerges in court that Vanya is a long-time violator of the NAP, and a reward has been placed on his head by another insurance company.

The most likely outcome of the case: Petya receives a reward for killing Vanya from one insurance company and pays compensation for killing Vanya to another insurance company. And that company, in turn, had already paid an insurance premium to Vanya’s heirs before any trial took place.

Obviously, the outcome of the case could be different: there might have been no reward for Vanya, and then Petya would find himself in more difficult financial circumstances.

By the way, speaking of difficult financial circumstances. I very much hope that everything is fine with your money, and you might even decide to thank this channel in monetary form. My wallet: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What to do if an ancap society that has successfully formed in some territory begins to be squeezed by neighbors? For example, if they are a religious state, and its citizens, possessing some kind of superiority (or the support of their state), buy land, move in, but do not want to observe the NAP?

anonymous question

The topic of direct military conflict was best explored by Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly, in the series of articles “Insurance Company ‘Sonechko’ versus the Tsardom of Muscovy”.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Most likely, this volume of material will be sufficient for you to address both the question you asked and several related ones.

But I will still make a small clarification regarding one of the models of creeping expansion you mentioned. Buying up all the land is very unrealistic, because the less unsold land remains, the more expensive it becomes, and the happy sellers of land receive more and more resources, which they can invest in assets that seem more profitable to them than the land they have just sold.

At the same time, the fact that a certain NAP violator is a landowner does not protect them in any way. They violated it — a conflict arose, now they either pay a penalty or they are fought against. In a state, the law may protect a NAP violator, but for ancaps, dealing with such problems is much simpler.

Sonechko

How to acquire land in Antarctica under libertarianism?

anonymous question

I am sure that under libertarianism, farming in the area of, say, the current Vostok Station would be very profitable. See for yourself:

First, constant katabatic winds, meaning energy surplus.

Second, a constant freezing blast, no problems with heat dissipation.
It’s the perfect place for mining, right!

All that’s left is to solve the problem of material strength in such frost, and probably some tinkering with lubrication in the wind turbines, but those are just trivial “boy problems” 😏

Meanwhile, there is an abundance of land in Antarctica—we simply don’t have enough crazy miners to overrun an entire continent; there are other types of business in the world, after all.

Therefore (I am finally starting to answer the asked question), in the foreseeable future, no more complex mechanism for acquiring land ownership than a simple homestead—that is, seizing unclaimed territory—will be required there.

By the way, speaking of miners: send some sats for the development of the channel! Here is the wallet:1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

See how much room there is for farms! Ururu!

Deception – a violation of NAP?

anonymous question

Deception is merely a violation of expectations. A person is expected to act in one way, but the deceiver acts in another.
Can deception cause harm? Of course, yes. A subject plans their actions based on premises that, as a result of deception, are not justified, and this increases their costs.

Is deception violence? Of course not. One can betray trust (for example, violate the Budapest Memorandum) and apply violence when peaceful behavior is expected from you, but still, deception is one thing, and violence is another.

Is deception aggression? Again, no. Deception can be a justification for aggression (Right Sector sent a train of Nazis to Crimea), but again, deception is separate, aggression is separate.

Where do the assumptions come from that deception in itself can be a violation of the NAP, that is, aggressive violence? Of course, from the concept of positive rights. There is a right to education, to social security, to respect, to the truth… Thus, the right to the truth is violated, and now my violence toward the deceiver will be self-defense. It should be noted that such an approach is most common not even among SJWs, but rather among classic gopniks. (Got anything? What if I find some?) The state is a special case of a gopnik, and also seeks to punish for deception (for example, for forging tax documents).

Will there be more deception under libertarianism than there is now? It cannot be said for certain, but I assume that there will be less, because a libertarian society does not hinder the action of feedback loops. But that is a separate large topic.

Do you think machine translators will replace people in the near future?

anonymous question

I think that even cat-girls won’t be able to replace humans as long as humans remain the measure of all things)))

If we are talking only about the narrow function of translation, then people, as they usually do, will leave all the tedious stuff to machines, while they themselves will translate poetry and other highly artistic works, simply because it is a pleasure in its own right—why give that up to some machines?

mega-translator

How will the issue of the nuclear arsenal in the Russia of the future be resolved upon the emergence of characteristic features of libertarianism or at least minarchism? Will nuclear weapons be placed under the jurisdiction of private individuals or decentralized across all regions and placed under the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies? Thank you.

anonymous question

I sincerely do not understand why one specific variety of product causes such a number of questions, while other varieties are not given such attention. Who, under libertarianism, will get the currently state-owned stockpiles of chemical weapons, who will get the nuclear ones, who will get the biological ones, who will get the multiple launch rocket systems, and who will get the strategic canned meat from twenty years ago?

The state, by its very nature, opposes the free market; therefore, it regularly produces all sorts of crap that no one gives a fuck about on the free market, but is very necessary for the state in order to dominate and show off. Then it goes bankrupt, and the question arises: who is willing to pay even a few pennies for this national treasure, and is this “who” a dangerous asshole who wants to use this treasure not only to show off (which is a clear and legitimate market incentive), but also to dominate.
The most market-efficient solution during the liquidation of a state is to offload the dangerous movable property of the deceased power to some neighboring state that hasn’t had time to die yet. Firstly, only a state is capable of paying some reasonable money for this illiquid asset, and secondly, by buying such shit, it will die faster, so its current citizens will get some indirect strategic profit from this.

Nevertheless, one must assume that various strategic junk will be scavenged in significant quantities by whoever happens to be around, and there will be no one to stop it. Some will go to collectors, some to paranoids, some to various DIY tinkerers who will manage to find a use for the junk in their backyard workshops. But terrorists will also want to acquire some. However, this, again, will be a problem for those states that still remain, or for certain groups similar to states in their methods of operation, even if they do not possess some state attributes. It is states that are the first and primary target of terrorists, not people or corporations.

Nevertheless, it is people who suffer from the actions of terrorists, and therefore, I believe, in a free libertarian society there will be some market demand for the disposal of various weapons of mass destruction, and this will also help to mitigate some of the harm from them. Someone clears territories of debris, someone deals with mine clearing, someone dismantles missiles in silos—and this increases the value of the territory since it reduces the risks of managing it.

valuable scrap metal

That guy wants to create a nuclear bomb under libertarianism (since no one will forbid him from creating it or buying materials for it) and blow it up, how to avoid this scenario?

anonymous question

In the previous post, the question was phrased ambiguously, and it seems the author has clarified it, so now the answer will be slightly about something else.

It’s quite funny, but as far as nuclear bombs are concerned, all libertarian principles are working right now.

In the realm of relations between states, there is de facto anarchy; law is decentralized, governed by the willingness to bear the costs of certain actions, the institution of reputation, and other concepts dear to the ancap heart. When libertarianism is fully implemented in human society, the mechanisms will remain exactly the same, only instead of states, there will be other legal entities, without a territorial monopoly on aggressive violence. They will be equally able to negotiate among themselves on the transfer of technologies and materials, on mutual control measures, on measures to limit access to the nuclear club, on sanctions for violating the non-proliferation regime, on the ban on detonating bombs wherever they please—and similar things we are well acquainted with from media headlines.
If even such ferocious thugs (from the perspective of their relationship with the law) as states manage not to detonate bombs in populated areas because they are constantly staring each other down, then under libertarianism, on average far more sane legal entities will be able to reach effective agreements among themselves.

Again, a nuclear bomb is an effective means of inflicting damage on a large territory, and under ancap, large territorial jurisdictions are extremely unlikely; most likely, they will be contractual, or even arise situationally for each specific legal conflict.

That is, the point of the combat use of nuclear weapons will be near zero; only the scientific and entertainment value will remain. Yes, those very recreational nukes. In deep space—why not.

boom!

Apple-chan

I’ve already written a couple of times about the misadventures of Yabloko-chan regarding the face-control at the Moscow mayoral election club. She simply couldn’t decide which little dress to wear to be let into the club, so she told everyone to go to hell and went to the beach instead.

The right decision. Face-control at the entrance to public places is complete madness, and it’s better not to get in at all than to go and play the role of the ugly friend.

But my sympathy would be far more sincere if, in turn, Yabloko-chan herself hadn’t refused to put in a good word for me before the municipal deputy elections in Vnukovskoye. No matter; in the worst case, I’ll run as a self-nominated candidate.

municipal filter