I see a strange inconsistency in this question…
If you want to create and detonate a nuclear bomb, then why ask how to avoid it?..
Let’s imagine that the question sounds like this: “I want to buy a firework and set it off. How should I proceed?”
The answer will be simple.
First, you need to find someone who will sell you a firework so that you can set it off.
Second, you need to find enough funds to buy it.
Third, you need to find a site where it can be set off safely for others.
And once all three conditions are met, you have the opportunity to set off your honestly purchased firework at that site.
And libertarianism simply allows you to replace the word “firework” with the words “nuclear bomb” in the boundary conditions of this problem, with full confidence that no other conditions are required.
You are a strange anarcho-primitivist, because they supposedly reject categories such as profit, along with other delights of civilization, like trade, division of labor, and similar nonsense, without which the great anarcho-primitivist culture spread across the entire earth, and then, where the free land ran out in some places, the Neolithic revolution occurred.
How is ancap beneficial to you? Only under ancap do you have the opportunity to freely settle in unclaimed lands and nomad there, engaging in hunting and gathering. As long as you don’t attack more civilized hunters with guns who hunt in the same territory with your clubs (since you don’t recognize the category of property), no one will have any claims against you: just live in harmony with nature.
The process of urbanization continues for civilized humanity, so there is unclaimed land, and still quite a lot of it.
Statists won’t offer you such conditions, so agree 😉
NAP is not a contract. It is a principle. If people in a certain community are guided by this principle in their actions—that is, they predominantly observe it and, in case of a violation, are ready to bear responsibility to those to whom they caused harm—then we can confidently call such a society libertarian.
In a libertarian society, there are ways of causing harm without violating the non-aggression principle, and you are speaking of one of them. Your manifestation of aggression toward someone who pursued you non-violently may be precisely the goal of that non-violent pursuit. With a high degree of probability, the person toward whom you displayed provoked violence was insured for a significant sum and also ensured wide broadcasting of all the circumstances of your interaction with them—otherwise, they were poorly prepared for the conflict, or perhaps they really are crazy. Consequently, after you resorted to violence, you likely end up paying a lot of money and suffering reputational damage, because a bunch of people will see how you, for example, in a rage, shoot a guy with a sign saying “so-and-so is a dick,” who was shouting that same phrase at you. “He really is a dick,” your potential counterparts decide.
In general, if you are prepared for such problems, you can give vent to your irritation. Maybe you’ll be lucky, and no one will even stand up for the deceased. But it is far safer to provide your hater with counter-shaming, or even, why not, try to reach an agreement.
If a model is implemented specifically with the coefficients you propose, charitable organizations will be swimming in money and spending it on whatever they please. Judge for yourself. In today’s Russia, buying housing is comparable to the cost of rent for a quarter of a century. In Europe, it is comparable to ten years of rent. And here you propose to allow the forced buyout of your real estate for only the cost of an eight-year tax in favor of the poor, which is technically the same as rent. This means that every landowner regularly incurs insane costs for owning their property, and in order to make a profit, is forced to pass these expenses on to consumers. Consumers will howl and say they’ve had enough of such prices, after which they will start turning to the notorious charitable organizations for subsidies. The volume of forced redistribution from the market-efficient to the market-inefficient, amounting to 12% of the value of all real estate per year, is a hell of a lot.
Accordingly, if the x100 coefficient is increased by an order of magnitude, the system will become an order of magnitude more lenient toward efficient market participants. And if the coefficient tends toward infinity, we get ordinary ancap, where the forced buyout of land is impossible.
As I understand it, geolibertarianism has two justifications. First, there is a desire to play it safe in case the volume of private voluntary charity turns out to be lamentably small from the perspective of geolibertarian apologists, and the result wounds their aesthetic sensibilities. Second, there is a desire to protect against those who are unwilling to part with land in favor of those ready to manage it more efficiently than the former owners.
In other words, geolibertarianism is based on the fear of the injustice of freedom. Well, it’s a sort of “half-measure” statism, only unlike classical minarchism, here the rape is proposed in a different hole.
Free money is a very interesting scam. The essence of freigeld, an invention of Silvio Gesell, is that absolutely all money used in a certain, usually local, economy is de facto borrowed at a fixed interest rate from a “central bank.” At the same time, as is customary among leftists, he explains the meaning of the word freigeld as money that is free from — you guessed it — loan interest!
Naturally, all attempts to implement this scheme were eventually suppressed as fraudulent — central banks find it more profitable to use a more sophisticated scam instead of a direct one: modern fiat money, which has been written about extensively, and that is a topic for a separate story.
A modern follower of Gesell, Bashkir economist Rustam Davletbayev, implemented the freigeld system in the village of Shaymuratovo, where the village’s primary enterprise had problems with ruble liquidity. By creating a local currency, it effectively took on banking functions, bypassing the Russian banking licensing system, for which, of course, it faced attacks from the prosecutor’s office.
I see nothing wrong with issuing private money and lending it to people at interest if there is a market demand for it. It’s just that in a situation where the state vigilantly monitors the money production sphere, one must either camouflage themselves, as Gesell’s followers do, or issue money that the state simply cannot block, as Nakamoto’s followers do. Technically, there is no fundamental difference between whether demurrage occurs periodically, causing money to be plannedly depreciated by a certain percentage, or whether money emission occurs periodically, increasing the total money supply by a certain percentage. Both lead to the fact that the value of the money held by holders decreases, while the one who issues the money makes a profit. As long as people use such money voluntarily, this is a perfectly fair reward.
By the way, in personal communication, Davletbayev is a sweetheart)
If you like this channel, you can sponsor it in bitcoins — this is money uncontrolled by the state with programmed decentralized emission. Here is the wallet: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Accepting donations in shaymuratiks or other varieties of freigeld is much harder and completely unprofitable, because they cannot function as a store of value, so bitcoins are better after all 😉
I am asked this question quite often, usually with an underlying meaning of “well, convince me to join!” For example, Mikhail Svetov answers this question in his interview.
Good attempt, but no. Let’s not confuse the concepts.
I very much want you to become my supporter. You will receive a wealth of recommendations on what to read regarding libertarianism, economic, ethical, and legal theory. You will be able to discuss this substantively with others in chats, at meetings, and in debates. You will receive recommendations and other assistance when applying for a weapons permit. You will be helped in the event of conflicts with the state repressive apparatus. You will be able to join many interesting activities yourself, or involve others in some activity. There is much of interest around me, and it is in you, my supporters, that my strength and pride lie.
But joining the party itself means regular work on a voluntary basis. Here, it is not enough to be a libertarian, not enough to have a desire to educate others in the libertarian spirit, not enough to have a desire to support the party — you must have sufficient time, energy, and talent to do this regularly, and moreover, in constant interaction with other people who have their own ideas about what to do and how to do it. If you were fired up by the idea of joining the party, convinced me to accept you, and then burned out six months later, and now you can’t even be dragged to a regional branch meeting — then you joined for nothing. Now I will have to spend energy transferring you to the supporters, where you belonged from the start — otherwise, your passivity will disrupt the work of the democratic mechanisms, damn them.
So it is not I who needs to convince you to join the party. It is you who will have to convince me that you are not just a libertarian, but that you also understand what you are getting yourself into.
If you will, becoming a supporter of the party is like starting a romance, while joining the party is like starting a family. Feel the difference.
Switzerland is the best example of a successful confederation, the successful operation of direct democracy, and the successful opposition to the expansion of state functions. However, even Switzerland is still not minarchism. Taxes instead of voluntary contributions, the existence of a central bank, and state economic and non-economic regulations are all beyond the minarchist ideal.
Nevertheless, Switzerland is an excellent benchmark for virtually any modern society desiring more freedom and less state.
As Mikhail Svetov, who actively pushes his own cultural agenda, likes to claim, libertarianism itself carries no cultural agenda. Therefore, if a particular local libertarian community has its own cultural characteristics, it is simply a reaction to local cultural phenomena.
Where does the christophobia of Russian libertarians come from? From the ROC, which acts as the state’s primary ally, postulates that all power comes from God, and demonstrates legal nihilism. If Protestantism were more deeply rooted in the RF, Russian libertarians would have a less suspicious attitude toward religion. As it is, of course, a libertarian says: we, supposedly, are neutral toward a person’s right to believe, but please get these bearded men in dresses with crosses away from me—they stink.
This is also where the attitude toward abortion comes from. For libertarian ethics, this is a disputed zone where there are arguments for both positions. But the ROC is against abortion, and this position already becomes aesthetically repulsive. I think there is no need to elaborate on LGBT—it is all the same. A libertarian may dislike these minorities, but in a situation where the state uses all the power of its violence to persecute them, the moral condemnation of LGBT becomes indecent.
The person who provides a content hosting service has every right to impose restrictions on it. The person who provides a content consumption service also has every right to restrict that same content. Thus, if a child uses their guardian’s computer, phone, or television, the guardian may restrict the content according to their own ideas of what is appropriate. If a child finds their own ways to obtain information independently, they have every right to use them. For example, they might go behind the garages, and there people are fighting (fucking, shooting up, you name it). Private shock content; if you don’t want to see it, don’t look.
If you are interested for the purpose of figuring out whether you should buy shares in a company that produces accessories for zoophiles in advance, or conversely, whether you should dump these shares, then I have no good news for you: it is impossible to make quantitative forecasts here.
From the position of libertarianism, animals are objects, not subjects of law (the exception, as you correctly noted, is an animal such as a human, simply by virtue of the fact that he invented this very law). Therefore, any actions of an owner with his animal on his own territory, which do not cause direct damage to other people who are not co-owners of the animal or the territory, cannot be subjects of legal proceedings at all. It is another matter that such actions can be given a moral evaluation, and one can attempt, through shaming, to drive someone who treated an animal “wrongly” to the point of suicide, if one has enough talent and persistence.
But an interesting legal case occurred to me, which I would not venture to resolve unequivocally.
A cat owner lives in a certain condominium. According to the charter, the chairman of the condominium is elected in general elections by the members of the condominium, and to be elected, it is not strictly necessary to be a member of the condominium oneself. The cat was included in the ballot, won the election, and is now the chairman of the condominium. Then, the owner of the cat performs a sexual act with it without the latter’s consent and publishes a video. The question is: in this case, should the cat be considered the sole property of its owner, or an official who has been harmed?
