Автор: Анкап-тян

When libertarians come to power, will they immediately legalize sex with children and the sale of heroin?

Anonymous question

If we are considering the scenario where “libertarians come to power,” then the following picture emerges: in a more or less liberal state, a government has appeared through more or less democratic means that declares its goal to be the transition to a minarchist state.

It is difficult to say what such a government would do immediately and what it would do later. It is clear that reforms must be carried out as quickly as possible, but the speed will largely be determined by the level of trust granted to this minarchist government.

Since this trust is not absolute, it is important not to waste it on insignificant things, as someone like Yushchenko did after the Orange Revolution.

I would start with the following measures:

  • immediate decriminalization of the use and possession of all drugs, decriminalization of the sale of soft drugs, and the rehabilitation of all those convicted under the decriminalized articles. This would significantly reduce the burden on prisons, police, investigators, and courts, but would not give my opponents any serious leverage, as the decriminalization of soft drugs is a global trend approved by the UN.
  • dissolution of all organizations ending in “-nadzor” (oversight agencies).
  • abolition of a host of insignificant but administratively complex taxes and fees: transport tax, state duties, Platon, property tax, and all export and import duties.
  • immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.

And if my government manages not only to pull all this off quickly but also to remain in power, then it will be possible to deal with less urgent matters, such as abolishing the age of consent and decriminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but this would still be a lower priority than, for example, the abolition of VAT, judicial reform, and many other things.

Now, if we are talking not about a minarchist government, but about an evolutionary transition to ancap, bypassing the minarchism stage, then the term “come to power” is simply incorrect.

Why is the opinion that there will be some problems with roads under ancap so popular? Doesn’t the existence of toll roads show that their construction can be profitable?

Anonymous question

Roads are an easily accessible, common-sense example of a public good provided by the state through:

  • taxes
  • laws on land expropriation for road construction
  • uniform traffic rules within the jurisdiction
  • traffic police and other structures performing related functions.

In general, roads are a large, complex, and expensive “something,” yet any car owner can get on the road and drive for free. But if toll roads owned by different parties are introduced, the average car owner immediately envisions countless barriers, queues at them, and similar clumsy interfaces for taking their money. “No way,” thinks the car owner, “taxes are better.”

The fact that building toll roads can be profitable does not prove the advantages of ancap. The advantage of ancap is proven by the fact that the construction of free roads can be profitable.
A road does not lead from void to void. It connects plots of land, thereby increasing their transport accessibility and, consequently, their commercial value. It is precisely to increase the value of their land that owners have a vested interest in building roads to it. Any owner of a summer house in a cottage community can confirm this for you.

Has public immunity been lowered in Ancapistan, since there are special kindergartens for the children of anti-vaxxers in Ancapistan and no state standards for mandatory vaccinations?

Anonymous question

Who even handles vaccinations in Ancapistan? Obviously, those who benefit from it. But if everyone around you is vaccinated and you are not, the probability of getting infected turns out to be negligible. This creates a free-rider effect: it is beneficial for each individual not to be vaccinated themselves (no need to spend on the vaccine, no need to deal with side effects), but it is beneficial for everyone that all others are vaccinated. Etatists scare us by claiming that without the benevolent sovereign’s whip, no one will get vaccinated because of this effect.

The most obvious beneficiaries of mass vaccination are insurance companies: people get sick less often, which means lower insurance payouts. Therefore, in our beloved Ancapistan, they are the ones highly interested in stimulating people to get vaccinated. One could simply make vaccination a condition for purchasing a policy, but it is easier to lower the policy price for those who are vaccinated.

As a result, firstly, an economic incentive emerges to create a positive externality for others, and secondly, those who are not vaccinated are the least interested in clustering together. On the contrary, it is in their interest to disperse as evenly as possible to benefit from herd immunity.

In general, problems that are almost always solved under a state using a whip are solved in Ancapistan using a carrot. Switch to our side, we have carrots!

We exist, yes!

Would the development and invention of new technologies slow down if patent law were abolished? You are in favor of the idea that information cannot be property, right?

Anonymous question

Yes, indeed, only a scarce resource can become property. As long as a dozen people possess information, it is a scarce resource. When information is known to everyone, what scarcity can there be? Meanwhile, patent law is the forced imposition on everyone of a state where they know something but are obliged to pretend they do not. It is as if I make a cool print on a T-shirt, wear it, and then pursue everyone who is inspired by this print and makes one for themselves, or creatively adapts the idea.

But the question was not about that, but about how the speed of the emergence of new technologies will change when patent law dies.

The very way new technologies emerge will change. Currently, it is profitable to develop something within an isolated collective, not knowing what competitors are working on, spending a heap of resources on leak protection, and then obtaining patents—thereby blocking the way for others. That’s it, you have priority; you can breathe a sigh of relief and calmly use the results while others try to find bypasses for the development of the technology that you did not protect with a patent.

In the absence of patents, it will be profitable to work as openly as possible and exchange all intermediate results with anyone interested. The speed of development will increase. The efficiency of technologies will increase because there will be no need to use unpatented bypasses.

The question arises: why would manufacturers feed their developers at all, wouldn’t it be more profitable to save on them and use others’ developments? No, it wouldn’t, because the maximum profit in the market will be gained by whoever manages to set up production and sales first, and for that, one needs to be very deeply involved in all the latest developments. Therefore, an in-house development team is not only an element of prestige but also the ability to remain at the cutting edge of technology.

As a result, those who want to stay in place will have to run forward even faster than they do now, since no state will tie anyone’s legs with any patent law.

Everyone started running—so I started running too

How can you be tamed?

Anonymous question

Many believe that any girl can be tamed: get her hooked on sponsor money, dominate her with status, take her in a hard raider-style takeover… The first method is the most dangerous; it can actually work if the one doing the taming acts carefully. I very much hope to recognize such things in time. In essence, it is enough to keep one’s eyes open and remember one’s own values: when choosing between achieving tactical goals and values, one should always prefer values.

And what about the age of consent? Are all libertarians really pedophiles?

Anonymous question

The age of consent is simply an arbitrarily chosen age from which the state allows a “yes” answer to be considered “yes” without punishment; in other words, it is a crude and expensive-to-maintain crutch for common sense. In the absence of a state, nothing prevents a person from independently relying on common sense and independently weighing the consequences of their actions.

As for a “no” answer, libertarianism at no age allows it to be considered “yes” without punishment, which resolves the problem of violence.

I’ll just go ahead and agree!

And is painting graffiti on state property an infringement on property, or do you have the right by definition since you pay taxes?

Anonymous question

What are you even talking about? That which government officials are meant to manage is not property at all. It is simply a no-man’s-land resource. Soviet people, who invented the formula “you are the master here, not a guest—take every nail from work,” understood better than anyone what “state-owned” meant. By the way, it was precisely this tactic toward the state that led to its end; it was literally dismantled nail by nail, and only after that did people acquire a certain amount of property that was previously inaccessible to them.

So, graffiti on no-man’s-land walls is simply decorating the space around oneself at one’s own expense.

P.S. Following the discussion of the answer, I will add: graffiti on a government institution is not an attack on property (a government institution is not owned), but it is an attack on the privilege of government officials to have absolute control over the building’s walls.

Isn’t it true that this is better than leaving a bare wall?

Would public masturbation constitute a violation of the NAP? Would a child’s parent be able to shoot someone who likes to shake their equipment in front of children?

Anonymous question

How the Russian language lacks that elegant difference between can and may! He might be able to do it, but who would let him get away with it?
Was this a combat situation? The one who shot — did he mistake a penis for a gun? No, he didn’t pull out a penis to fire. There was no threat to the child’s life and safety, nor a threat of economic damage; what does the violation of the NAP have to do with this? What we have here is a violation of cultural traditions from the perspective of the outraged parent, and a violation of the NAP on their part.

Is it possible to disregard others’ cultural traditions with impunity in a libertarian society? In theory — yes. In practice, this will mean constant friction, up to lethal outcomes, with inevitable subsequent settlements. As long as people evaluate the costs of coexisting with representatives of other cultures as lower than the costs of segregation, coexistence will continue. As soon as the costs of coexistence seem higher, segregation will begin. Ordinary praxeology, nothing complicated.

Maybe return to central regulation instead? Alas, this leads to the emergence of privileged cultural groups, where, for example, conventional advocates of “traditional values” have the privilege of claiming damages for insults to public morality, while supporters of other norms are deprived of such a privilege. This creates far more friction in society than if nothing were touched at all.

Hi, LPR-tyan. I suffer from epileptic seizures that occur when I see frequently flashing bright light sources. Please tell me, do store owners with bright signs and motorists with high beam headlights violate the NAP in relation to me?

Anonymous question

Oh, what an interesting question! Generally, the most interesting questions concern various borderline situations, because banalities are already obvious. That is precisely why I will, of course, answer questions about the emancipation of children from parents, about abortions, and about negative externalities, as in this specific case.

I have just mopped the floor, and you walk across the wet surface, slip, and slam the back of your head into it, staining the scrubbed floor with your blood. What is this? A violation of the NAP? No, it is an accident. As a result of the incident, we both have property claims against each other, which we will resolve somehow. In a society of free people who care about their reputation, this would lead, for example, to me helping you call an ambulance, and you jokingly apologizing for messing up the floor. Your insurance will pay for the concussion treatment, I will mop the floor again, and my employer will order that “Caution, slippery floor” signs be put out during cleaning.

Basically, it’s the same thing with epilepsy, just less illustrative. No one has malicious intent, but a combination of circumstances leads to an accident in which someone is hurt, people may have property claims against each other that will have to be settled, and then conclusions will be drawn for the future. One person, the epileptic, will henceforth surprise passersby by walking the streets at night in dark glasses (or simply try not to walk at night without great need). Another, the road owner, for example, will provide brighter diffused lighting, so drivers won’t need to use high beams. A third person, embarrassed that they triggered someone’s epileptic seizure, will more carefully monitor their headlight mode, and so on.

Of course, it may turn out that no one changes anything and no conclusions are drawn; in this worst-case scenario, we simply have the same situation as we do now under state regulation of urban infrastructure—meaning the occurrence is too rare to adapt to.


How do you feel about Navalny? Does he have a chance to change anything?

Anonymous question

Imagine if I had hung a huge poster of Svetov on my wall and constantly discussed with my boyfriend what a cutie he is. In the best-case scenario, my boyfriend would have decided I was a cultist and got far away from me. In the worst-case scenario, it would be like RB-tyan. She has a poster of Navalny on her wall, a Navalny t-shirt on her chest, a Navalny sticker on her phone… As a result, instead of a beautiful Russia of the future, she and her boyfriend constantly discuss how cool Navalny is and what new video he has released. Now, as long as they do this, Navalny has no chance of changing anything: he himself becomes more interesting than his agenda. When RB-tyan starts being asked which books to read, that’s when the chance will appear.

But he is such a cutie!