Автор: Анкап-тян

Throughout human history, there have been many instances where an unfree part of society turned tools of labor into weapons and masked forbidden training as ritual dances. What does Ankap-chan think of this practice in relation to our time and gun control laws?

Moskvich

There is no more useful weaponized hobby for libertarians of all ages today than model aircraft clubs, drone piloting competitions, and similar completely harmless things. In Montelibero, there are already talks that a shooting club is, of course, a pleasant hobby, but how about teaching children to fly? Children are already learning this, of course, but not systematically enough; the ritual dances need further development.

Another useful type of ritual dance is the creative application of such a convenient agricultural tool as artificial intelligence. When a flying buzzing box autonomously combs through the mountains, finds a person lying in an inconspicuous crack, and carefully drops something useful to them—say, a first aid kit or a bottle of rakia, so they can tidy themselves up and hold out until rescuers arrive—that is extremely in demand for Montenegro. And why autonomously? Because in the mountains, you can’t ensure a stable radio signal; the slopes work no worse than some kind of EW device, such is the misfortune.

As for the harsh Olympic disciplines passed down from our ancestors, such as javelin throwing, we will leave those to the statists; let them continue preparing for the last war.

This girl is a bad dancer; you should look at the screen, not at the drone.

Libertarian Theory of War, Section 2.2. Entering the War

After a very long pause, I am continuing work on the book Libertarian Theory of War (thanks for the inspiration to the Canadian catgirl). The new section Entering the War is dedicated to an overview of the reasons for entering a war and the reasons for not entering one. As usual, spirits frolic on the pages of the book alongside economic analysis.

In the next chapter, in theory, the real meat should begin, as the preparations for the main action have dragged on a bit.

Translation of Eric Mack’s book “Libertarianism” is finished

The translation of the final chapter has been posted on my website. This chapter addresses a set of objections to libertarianism from well-meaning lovers of that wonderful atmosphere of cooperation and equality that we value so much in small communities united by a common goal. Eric Mack’s counterarguments boil down to the fact that attempting to stretch the “owl” of small, ideologically homogeneous communities over the “globe” of a diverse humanity leads to the owl tearing: the very values for which people cling to these small communities are lost.

Now only a purely technical task remains—to format the translation into an epub for more convenient reading. Those interested may use the text to publish a print run of hard copies of the translation on paper. I will be satisfied if, in doing so, it is indicated where the text was taken from, and a link is provided for those wishing to donate to the translator.

Anarchonomicon, review

An anonymous person asked me what I thought of a certain Canadian catgirl with the strange name Kulak (must be Ukrainian roots) who runs the website Anarchonomicon. I went to take a look and got hooked for a week)))

The website has two large, gradually expanding sections: Truly Banned Books and The Warlord’s Library. And besides that — a blog with regular notes.

Truly Banned Books

On what principle does Kulak select books as truly banned? Texts end up there for which people are assigned real prison sentences for possessing. Texts whose authors destroyed their careers by publishing them or were even killed for it. Texts that are not reprinted despite clear demand, becoming bibliographical rarities. Texts that are not cited. These can be puritanical and pornographic, racist and anti-racist, communist and fascist, written by dissidents and presidents alike. The main unifying feature is that the authors did not write them for a resume checkbox or for profit — but out of a need to speak out, even in the face of possible sanctions. It is for this sincerity that our catgirl singles them out from the general mass of literature.

The Warlord’s Library

A very impressive selection of materials on creating an armed formation, motivating it, managing it, and conducting military operations in various aspects (among other things, there is a link to David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom,” the translation of which I published relatively recently). What were the main principles guiding the author of this selection?

First, most readers likely have no idea what kind of conflict, and of what specific sort, they will suddenly be involved in. Therefore, simply training one specific skill, such as shooting, is not enough. But training all the skills that could be useful in various conflicts is unrealistic. However, mastering the literature on the subject is quite realistic. The vast majority of military conflicts are waged by non-professionals.

Second, the best book is the one you actually read. As long as it is just lying somewhere online, there is little use for it. But in the event of an approaching real conflict, you can at least go into an already prepared selection and read exactly the materials that seem relevant, if for some reason they were not mastered in advance.

Blog

Unfortunately, Kulak is somewhat shaky on technical issues related to the Ukrainian war, but when it comes to broader analysis, her thoughts are quite interesting. For example, the post on violence, dedicated to the recent murder of an insurance tycoon, is rhetorically very strong, although it does raise some questions from the perspective of the Austrian School of economics.

In short, I’ve subscribed to the cat-girl, which required me to register on Substack. There is a possibility that I might even post a copy of my own notes on this platform, but it’s not very likely: paid publications there require using the Stripe system, which, in turn, requires linking a bank card—and if it’s neither Montenegrin nor Russian, they can go to hell. And it only makes sense to build up another platform for free publications if I start, say, writing in English.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the penultimate chapter, on the critique of property rights by Murphy and Nagel

After a long, terrifyingly long break, I am getting around to finishing my once-started translation projects. Today it is the penultimate chapter of Libertarianism by Eric Mack, in which the author examines the critique of libertarianism by certain individuals unknown to me, Murphy and Nagel. The main point of their critique is that no natural rights exist; all rights are a convention. And, since the existing system of property rights is established through a state funded by taxes, it is meaningless to speak of the injustice of taxation, because taxation is inextricably linked to the very existence of property rights. A curious judgment that should make any libertarian’s blood boil. The way Eric Mack responds to them will, of course, not satisfy these statists, but it may slightly soothe the libertarian heartache.

While the translation was on pause, the mysterious technologies of the ancients were completely forgotten, so there will be no image with a progress bar.

David Friedman. Legal Systems Very Different from Our Own. Publishing my translation

The translation of the book was started by Dima Kovalenko under the editorship of Vladimir Zolotorev. Then, several chapters were translated by me independently. Finally, the translation was completed by order of the Socium publishing house. On the publisher’s website, you can purchase both the paper and electronic versions of the text. About six months have passed since the translation was published—plenty of time to sell a certain number of copies and recoup the project. So now I am publishing on my own page the original version of the translation, before its editing by the publisher. The translation is available for reading online; I will not be making an epub, as a downloadable version is already on sale.

The book is not about libertarianism, but about the competition of legal systems, and about the fact that no ideal legal system exists—there are many different conflicts occurring in many different circumstances, and inquisitive human thought invents very interesting ways to resolve them.

I also remind you that I still have a couple of translation projects remaining: “Libertarianism” by Eric Mack and “Practical Anarchy” by Stephan Molynieux. I think it’s time to finish these texts, and the best way to speed up the process is through your donations. By the way, Stephan Molynieux’s film was shown at the MTL-Fest 2024 pre-party, and after it ended, the viewers had the opportunity to chat briefly with the author; those interested can watch the recording of this conversation on the MTL-TV channel.

What should a libertarian do in emigration?

I suggested this topic to Mikhail Svetov for his presentation at MTL Fest 2023, but he preferred to talk about how one should think about global things and build a libertarian international. While preparing for MTL Fest 2024, I suggested giving Mikhail Pozharsky the topic “What should a libertarian do in Russia,” but he talked about why emigration is disgraceful, and that everyone who leaves the country makes things worse for those who remain. Perhaps it is better for me to reflect on the subject myself rather than continue pestering famous bloggers; they have already said what they wanted to say.

There are common notes in the reasoning of both Michaels. Svetov reminds us that a political emigrant is a refugee, usually poor, having lost everything in their homeland, and they should not feel safe in a new place; on the contrary, they should cling to the worldview of “I am at war” to stay sharp, to stay angry, and to be ready to stand by their own and avenge their enemies. Pozharsky speaks of lost emigrants who, after moving to another country, continue to cringe-worthily live by their old political agendas just to give themselves some sense of being needed and some semblance of meaning to their lives.

I extremely dislike both how Pozharsky describes emigrants and how Svetov wants to see them. In my view, a libertarian is a person with a developed sense of self-respect, capable of integrating organically into the market, valuing voluntary cooperation, and knowing that it is entrepreneurs who drive the world forward. The function of a libertarian is to prosper peacefully, preserve their property, and serve as an example for everyone who also wants to become a person of dignity.

Even when fleeing from an old country to a new one in haste and without possessions, a libertarian should not feel it as “I am a victim, I have lost everything.” No, he has successfully closed a dead-end project and immediately proceeded to implement a new one, taking into account the accumulated experience. Should he focus entirely on his own settlement? If necessary, during the most critical stage of his new life project—then yes. As soon as the opportunity arises, it is important to immediately lift one’s head above current chores, look around, establish or refresh friendly and business contacts, and contemplate one’s new position in a broader context.

Should one reject everything that was left behind in Russia or whichever country the emigrant arrived from? Again, not to reject, but to rethink. One could, for example, not just follow how things are going in the Russo-Ukrainian war, but choose a specific brigade, donate to them for supplies, and then proudly tell loved ones, “Look how fiercely my brigade is fighting.” Or, for instance, instead of participating in pathetic election campaigns somewhere on the edge of the earth, simply appoint oneself a deputy right here, in the diaspora, and gain experience in real affairs, earning real authority. The state is out there somewhere, but society is right here. We are all individualists; we form society, rather than bowing to the state like some pathetic collectivists.

Nostr, interim results

About a year and a half ago, the Nostr protocol was first mentioned in my channel — initially as the basis for a recurrent Lightning payments engine, and subsequently more detailed impressions were given regarding the protocol as a means of decentralized publishing. What has changed since then?

Unfortunately, not much. The adoption of Nostr is happening quite slowly, and even in Montelibero, no one really uses it properly (although Sondre from Liberstad is even writing his own software for Nostr, we don’t use it). I have tried several clients and settled on Amethyst for Android and Gossip for Windows. Web services are all terrible; none have gained traction. The vast majority of Nostr clients cosplay Twitter, except without character limits — which results in a complete lack of the ability to make posts with human-readable formatting. In principle, this is logical: even if one client understands a post with markup, another won’t bother with it. Decentralization encourages a certain degree of primitivism.

The browser application Alby has long relied on using a custodial Lightning wallet, but its support is ending soon, and now those interested are being offered to either set up their own node from the same provider or rent a ready-made one. Overall, this is sensible, but since I have no idea how to set up a node on a server, I had to just install it on my laptop, and now, as I understand it, post donations can only be sent when the node is online. Perhaps I’ll manage to do it properly eventually, but honestly, this task is not a high priority; usually, it’s just trivial stuff coming in anyway. For my part, I use these satoshis to reward other people’s posts—a simple cycle of gratitude in the blogosphere.

As for Nostr to start being widely adopted in Montelibero, it seems we need some serious persecution of freedom of speech; without that, no one will leave Telegram voluntarily. I understand perfectly)))

And what about under ancap..?

I constantly receive the same type of questions: how will this or that thing be implemented under ancap, given that it is currently implemented either directly by the state or by private entities, but under conditions of heavy state regulation. Quite often, these kinds of questions have a boundary condition: not everyone has the money to buy this thing on a free market, which is precisely what causes the questioner’s interest: how to provide the needy with this expensive thing if not through robbery.

Of course, one could go on for a long time saying that in a free, unregulated, competitive market, this desperately needed thing will be cheaper and of higher quality than it is today, but such arguments cannot fully negate the aforementioned boundary condition: not everyone will have the money for it regardless, and there will still remain the possibility that some of those who desperately need it will not have the money. Who will help them buy it?

I have a simple answer: you will do it yourselves, those who are so concerned about this issue. Because it is personally important to you that the needy receive this thing (otherwise, you wouldn’t be so concerned about this question). And it will not be particularly taxing for you personally, because you will be wealthy enough to afford this small expense. Why? Because you can buy Bitcoin right now. Even if it’s not a whole Bitcoin, but some fraction. And by the time ancap arrives on Earth, today’s acquisition will be so valuable that you will easily be able to afford such small-scale charity.

Get to it)))

A question about Montelibero’s tokenomics

Why did Monteliberro create an internal financial system similar to fiat (with artificial tokens and a trusted third party), and why do you support this decision by involving people? If the Montenegrin authorities deem Monteliberro’s internal payment tokens as securities and shut the operation down, will you take on the responsibility of reimbursing people for their financial losses? After all, it is obvious that abandoning Bitcoin in favor of one’s own internal shitcoin is merely a way for the owner and members of his politburo to make money.

Vito

To understand the logic behind the emergence of EURMTL, let’s compare Montenegro, for example, with El Salvador.

Neither state has its own sovereignly issued national currency. In El Salvador, the legal means of payment are the US dollar and Bitcoin. In Montenegro, it is the euro. Formally, the circulation of other fiat, as well as cryptocurrencies, is not regulated in any way, but in practice, we see a complete absence of street exchange points (unlike neighboring Serbia, where exchange offices are on every corner) and a complete absence of crypto ATMs (there was only one in the entire country, and even that one was arrested by the state, because in the absence of regulations, one agency believed “what is not permitted is forbidden,” another “what is not forbidden is permitted,” and in reality, the crypto ATM owners simply lacked sufficiently strong protection).

In El Salvador, a business owner, for the most part, does not care whether a client pays in dollars or Bitcoin. The exchange spread in the BTC/USDT pair is negligible, and the exchange between USDT and dollar cash is also likely carried out with minimal commissions. Thus, an entrepreneur can easily transfer money from one form to another literally on the fly, based on their preference for which form is more convenient for storing value.

And what about Montenegro? An entrepreneur has the right to accept only euros, in cash or non-cash form. If, instead of euros, he accepts anything else, for example, Bitcoin, he must put the euro equivalent of the received values from his own stash into the cash register, otherwise, the state will issue him a massive fine. This means he needs tools for convenient conversion. The exchange spread in the BTC/EUR pair is slightly higher than in the pair with the dollar, but tolerable. However, there is no sufficiently liquid euro-pegged stablecoin in existence; everyone uses dollar stables. And in order to withdraw money from an exchange to a bank card, one needs to have a bank card and a bank that will not block such an operation. Thus, for our potential Bitcoin maximalist, it would be more reliable to find some kind of money changer who will buy his bitcoins for euro cash, and then the entrepreneur can use the acquired euro cash to put into his own cash register and tell the state: here, look, I sold my stuff for euros and am ready to report to you. The commission for such street exchange is about 5%, and the daily exchange rate of Bitcoin relative to the euro also fluctuates freely by about the same amount, so on an unlucky day, you can lose a lot of money.

Of course, when calculating things yesterday, there were no problems with telling each other prices in Bitcoin and settling with it. In fact, for large deals, we regularly do exactly that, because there aren’t many maniacs willing to hold large sums in fiat; Bitcoin is the savings tool. But imagine a gathering in a restaurant. Seven people walked around for three hours, racked up a bill of two hundred euros, and the owner wouldn’t even think about splitting the check because, by local customs, one person always pays. You could, of course, open calculators and start calculating: here this unfortunate owner of a two-hundred-euro note pays for everyone, the Bitcoin to Euro exchange rate is such-and-such, so now let him issue an invoice in Lightning to each drinking companion for the Bitcoin equivalent of the debt expressed in euros. Very damn convenient, especially when everyone is tipsy.

Therefore, we simply invented our own Euro stablecoin and started using it, primarily for these kinds of small mutual settlements. And so that the counterparty would willingly accept these tokens, some project participants took on a free social burden—the obligation to exchange EURMTL for EuroCash for anyone who wishes, without a commission. It is a heavy burden. I, for example, do not dare take on such obligations for any significant amount, because it would require freezing my own capital in EuroCash and EURMTL, and the mere prospect of having so much money sitting not in Bitcoin simply makes me sick.

I hope I have managed to make it clear that maintaining the EURMTL infrastructure is not a profit for the issuer, but an expense. For what purpose does it incur them? The issuer of mules is the Montelibero investment fund. Naturally, it would not build such an impressive and costly infrastructure for the free exchange of mules for cash and back just to provide the Montelibero community members with a tool for splitting a cafe bill. The main purpose of the infrastructure is to make it convenient for people to buy fund shares and receive dividends on them. Why not conduct all settlements in Bitcoin? Because the fund, by attracting investments, invests them into local businesses. A local business, having received investments in any currency, will be forced to convert them into euros to spend on its subsequent operating activities. It will also receive its profits in euros. Under these conditions, fixing a business’s debt obligations in Bitcoin means predetermining its future bankruptcy, as the long-term growth rate of Bitcoin’s exchange rate exceeds the income of almost any business.

Of course, the upcoming hyperbitcoinization will mean a transition to ubiquitous settlements in Bitcoin, but it will also mean a significant decrease in the growth rate of Bitcoin’s purchasing power; for now, during this transition period, it is necessary to conduct settlements and hold some reserves in currencies whose long-term value is decreasing.

Now let’s talk about the risks of direct intervention by the Montenegrin state in the Montelibero tokenomics by declaring any tokenized liabilities as securities, the circulation of which requires approval from the state financial regulator.

Yes, for some time the global trend was exactly this, and it was reflected in the fact that the US jurisdiction was becoming increasingly toxic for cryptocurrencies. What did this lead to? To the ruling party suffering a crushing defeat in all branches of government under the promises of its opponents to significantly deregulate the industry. I foresee a substantial reduction in the powers of the US Securities and Exchange Commission regarding cryptocurrencies, European regulators following suit in the same vein, and a complete loss of interest from the Montenegrin regulator in the relevant sphere, because it is no longer fashionable.

Let’s assume, however, that instead of following American trends, the EU and Montenegro fall, say, under China’s influence. They ban cryptocurrencies or subject them to a large number of regulations. It is clear that in this case, any crypto enthusiasts in Montenegro will feel just as nervous as, say, marijuana sellers. In other words, only a handful of people will be held accountable for this undoubtedly prohibited business, purely to demonstrate that the state is working hard in this direction. Naturally, in this case, Montelibero will have to move its entire infrastructure from the simple, convenient, cheap, but very transparent Stellar to some other blockchain. We have already had experience working with tokens on the Liquid sidechain. It was a terrible hassle, but better than nothing.

There will be no need for me to compensate Montelibero tokenomics participants for their financial losses; instead, I will have to participate in developing manuals for transitioning to systems with higher levels of privacy. I do not have the resources to do this in advance, but I consider such a scenario highly unlikely. Even if it were implemented, we would most likely just pause the tokenomics until a new solution is developed, and in the meantime, we will make do with Lightning payments.

To summarize.

  1. Montelibero tokenomics has evolved along an evolutionary path, following the real needs of the community more closely than the theoretical considerations of Bitcoin maximalists.
  2. Montelibero tokenomics will easily restructure either for settlements in Bitcoin under an optimistic hyperbitcoinization scenario, or for the use of secure mutual obligation accounting schemes under a pessimistic scenario of a sharp increase in state regulatory control.