Автор: Анкап-тян

How will prostitution work under ancap?

Digit

I thought it would be interesting to discuss this issue specifically after a couple of posts about a hypothetical cellular stimulator that allows one to gain serious short-term advantages at the cost of premature wear and tear on the body. Professional prostitution in a free market is exactly the same trade-off. Intensive exploitation of one’s body while it is young and beautiful, and after that, it is a personal matter how to dispose of the fruits of this exploitation: one can squander it, invest it successfully, or invest it unsuccessfully.

The fewer the barriers to entry into the market, the higher the competition, the lower the prices, and the lower the chances of exchanging youth and beauty for a sufficiently serious income that such an exchange would make sense at all. Therefore, of course, prostitution as a mass profession under ancap is unlikely. It is far more likely that it will be used as a side job while searching for more suitable permanent employment, including during the period of study. Roughly for the same reasons people go work as couriers, taxi drivers, or waiters.

Naturally, as is the case now, various activists will speak in defense of these low-paid unskilled service workers, with varying degrees of clumsiness. But, since under ancap they will not have options like “achieving a ban on the activities of aggregator platforms” or “achieving the criminalization of the purchase of services,” this activism will be reduced either to demands for the reduction of platform commissions or to campaigns such as “I always pay service workers good tips, do as I do.”

As is well known, the activity of taxi aggregators currently faces active opposition from professional licensed taxi drivers. Under ancap, this activity is not licensed, and professional licensed taxi drivers simply disappear, so competition for freelance taxi drivers using various aggregators is provided only by those who prefer to be behind the wheel themselves, including those who give friends rides for free. The same applies to prostitution—permanent marriage unions and ordinary friendly flings will not go anywhere; both have their costs, but direct payment is usually not discussed here. However, somewhere at the junction between full-fledged prostitution and completely free sex, work for donations may well be located: a person may be shy about stating a fixed price but clearly makes it known that they would be glad for a voluntary reward.

This is exactly how I create my texts. They will appear for free because I enjoy the creative process, but I will give preference to a question with a donation, even if it is not as interesting as a free one—because I need money, and because the fact of payment creates a moral obligation. Moreover, this provides a simple ranking of those for whom my answer is more important and those for whom it is less so. Roughly the same mechanism will operate within ancap and with donations for sex: if one party basically enjoys the process but does not want to make a hobby a profession, and the other represents an undefined circle of people, then instead of a long and careful search for an exclusive partner, such a donation scheme is quite likely.

As a reminder, it is better to ask questions here, and the ways to donate are listed here.

How much did they donate? Right, the get-together with girlfriends is canceled, I’m scheduling a meeting.

Discussing the magic stimulant

So, readers have discussed across several platforms the fantastic assumption laid out in the previous post, its consequences, and their own personal lines of behavior.

Here are the main ideas.

  1. Humanity already consists of both fanatical overachievers and those living “half-heartedly.” If the contrast becomes slightly stronger—well, that’s great. Overachievers will achieve even greater success, burning with their ideas, while others will enjoy the results in a comfortable mode for themselves (as a separate opinion, some believe that those dabbling in the stimulant will be spatially separated from those who don’t, or conversely, communities of advocates for naturalness will appear).
  2. The first thing people under the stimulant will do is develop a second version of the stimulant, devoid of the side effects of the first version, and then we’ll all live well.

Many also noted that the value of a conditional Harvard lies not in knowledge, but in networking; this is a long-term task, and the stimulant does not solve it. Nor does it solve many other tasks, such as finding a long-term marriage partner, raising children, selecting new varieties of baobab, and so on.

It’s funny how the question of a life-accelerating stimulant echoes another question I answered not so long ago—about the consequences of the appearance of immortality technology for the chosen few. Let me introduce additional constraints here as well. Let the production of the stimulant be a cheap and easily replicable technology that is practically impossible to ban. Also, let this technology provide no shortcuts allowing it to be tweaked in a relatively short time to remove the key unpleasant side effect. Otherwise, it’s not interesting.

How could this stimulant appear? Most likely—during developments in the field of traumatology or something of that sort. They struggled for a long time with animals, could not overcome the effect of premature aging, and finally released it for use in first-aid kits as a last resort, initially for the military. If you don’t use it—you die in half an hour; if you do—you live some number of years less. Then, a recovering person, out of boredom, picks up a higher mathematics textbook, or, say, a manual on repairing HIMARS in field conditions—and discovers with surprise that the material is absorbed perfectly. That’s it, the genie is out of the bottle.

It is also quite obvious that cancer patients of any age will use the stimulant. Additionally, it is a more than justified remedy for Alzheimer’s. In short, there will be a significant number of people for whom the use of the stimulant will provide a double plus—both the extension (or serious alleviation) of life and the enhancement of abilities. Instead of living for twenty years as a demented person, a paralytic, or undergoing surgery every six months, a person would quite easily prefer ten years of more comfortable aging coupled with a flowering of cognitive functions.

It is more than likely that the stimulant will be used in poor, large families. Why send a daughter into prostitution or a son to a hazardous production site if there is a way to lift the whole family out of poverty with far lower costs, even regarding the reduction of expected life expectancy. In other words, the stimulant will accelerate social elevators. For those who have acceptable starting conditions, there are fewer incentives to use the drug. Thus, the stimulant will contribute to increasing equality, which leftists love to prattle on about.

As for a truly mass transition to the stimulant—this seems unlikely to me. After all—so we know that methamphetamine is actively used in North Korea to increase labor productivity—and so what? Perhaps students before exams sometimes follow this example, but it is not the case that consumers of this stimulant are directly displacing those who shun it from the labor market. Again, modern left-wing governments are far more concerned with unemployment than with labor productivity. If some maniacs are ready to replace entire creative teams—then for those who have dropped out of the competitive race, even more bullshit jobs will simply be invented.

And under ancap? I see no serious difference; this technology is not key to the formation of society. Except that bullshit jobs under ancap would be substantially fewer, which means those not using the stimulant would have a less stable income, but would be able to enjoy lower prices. However, those using the stimulant wouldn’t become models of stability either, since the stimulant is more about extreme effort than about a constant increase in efficiency. So, the niche for the workhorses will remain wide enough for a long time.

What do you mean “I don’t want the stimulant”? The clock is ticking!

Birthday – not only once a year

I was sent a text describing a fantastic hypothesis and a question about what should be changed in human relationships so that the consequences wouldn’t frighten us too much. So…

Imagine that a certain cellular stimulator had been developed and became available, which, by accelerating biological processes in your body, could cure you of a disease or injury very quickly—literally in an hour—allow you to prepare for entrance exams to a prestigious university in a week, or perform huge volumes of work in the shortest possible time. The price for this is an accelerated “wearing out” of the body, visually and physiologically indistinguishable from natural aging over a longer period of time under natural conditions and, let’s say, without any other side effects. Would you use such a technology?

At first, you’re unlikely to like the idea, but afterwards, you might wonder if it’s worth sacrificing a piece of your life just once and literally celebrate several birthdays in one year for the sake of some significant achievement—for example, getting into Harvard, which should ensure you a good profession, a brilliant career, and high income for the rest of your slightly diminished life. But you’re unlikely to be the only “smart one,” and you’ll soon realize that with such a means existing, many people might start using it in the pursuit of efficiency and quick gains—first in one particular situation, and then again and again. This means that remaining competitive in studies or work without resorting to this means will simply become impossible. And employers, of course, all other things being equal, will prefer to deal with people who never catch a cold, don’t get tired, and can perform a month’s worth of work in a week. And you suddenly find yourself in the position of a professional athlete who understands that it’s impossible to win without doping, but doping will most likely lead him to the grave or make him disabled about five years sooner.

How would you solve this problem? A blunt government ban on the drug won’t help. Government agents themselves would be happy to use its effect, primarily for military purposes if talking about others, and to increase efficiency in political struggles if talking about themselves. How, in your opinion, should human relationships be influenced so that situations do not arise where some people absolutely do not care about others and are only glad if they completely exhaust their life resource for their own benefit?

In the next post, I will share my reflections on the proposed situation, but for now, I would like to read your ideas in the comments.

Is it legitimate to sell weapons to a mentally ill and potentially dangerous person?

If it is illegitimate, when exactly does it become illegitimate: at the moment of sale, or when that same unstable person commits a crime?

Ancapman

We are, of course, considering ancap, because under a state, this issue is resolved through political games surrounding regulations, and we are interested in what is the correct way.

Ancap is a free market plus the decentralization of law enforcement. The market means that the seller decides for themselves to whom and for how much to sell a gun. Anarchy means that conflicts are resolved on an ad hoc basis.

A psycho wants to buy a gun. The gun owner wants to sell it. A bystander fears that the psycho will shoot someone and would like the gun not to be sold to him. In other words, he has a conflict with the seller. But how will this bystander know that the buyer is a dangerous psycho? Do we have a society of total control, which is dreamed of by the author of the book Practical Anarchy, Stephan Molignon?

Of course, it is easy to imagine a society where all the dangerous psychos are known. This is a village or a small town where everyone knows everyone. This one isn’t a psycho, but a harmless hippie; he’s skating on the promenade. But this one is constantly shouting at his wife, and it seems there are fights. And when someone tries to reason with him, he becomes even more agitated and spews incoherent threats. Maybe he shouldn’t have a gun? And the owner of the only gun shop in the area would prefer not to take on extra responsibility. Or he sells it carelessly, and then tomorrow at the barbershop, he’ll be asked if he’s an idiot.

But people, you know, sometimes choose to live in megacities for some reason. Will megacities remain under ancap? I fully assume so: people cluster because many types of offline businesses have a significant positive effect of scale, and they will continue to have it even in the absence of state regulations.

In a megacity, generally speaking, all people look the same to each other. A gun can be sold in a thousand places. No one will voluntarily chip in to maintain a complex system of weapons registration and total medical examination, which means there won’t be one. Therefore, let’s simply accept as a fact that under ancap, any solvent psycho will always find a way to buy a gun, including anonymously, and even that loudmouth from the small town can easily do it simply by going to a megacity.

How to protect oneself from the consequences? In a small town, it is much easier for a dangerous psycho to be refused an apartment rental. He will be forced to move from time to time until he settles in the outskirts, where landlords won’t constantly receive complaints about their tenant. In a megacity, it may be unclear who to complain to about a violent neighbor, because generally, you simply don’t know who owns the neighboring apartment. But if it’s very irritating, you can, again, move yourself to a more decent district where more attention is paid to the peace of the residents.

Well, if the violent psycho does get a gun and intends to use it, the situation becomes very simple: get your own and neutralize the psycho. Or someone else who gets there first will do it. There is no time here to reason whether it was legitimate to sell that person a gun, or who to blame for the resulting situation. The probability of accidentally getting hit by a bullet is significantly lower than the probability of accidentally getting hit by a car or drowning, but that doesn’t make people give up cars or swimming.

In general, the question about psychos and guns was already asked to me about five years ago. Goodness, five years! How long I’ve been running this channel!

Montelibero Project News, Issue 16

You know, things have been quite interesting in Montelibero lately.

Four households have already formed in MTL-City. The first three are builders who settled in newly constructed apartments—one of them bought his, while two are renting. The fourth household is the family of the Mayor of MTL-City. Previously, he accepted construction work remotely, but now he will be able to oversee the construction from the roof of his apartments while sipping kafa.

And on September 23, MTL-City will host a libertarian festival. We recently did a reconnaissance trip, estimated where to place the various locations, and realized that about three hundred people could comfortably hang out there—two hundred on the main stage area, and another hundred could easily disperse among the other activities. Several presentations are planned from the stage during the day. First, I’ll briefly talk about how these two and a half years have gone for Montelibero (ah, fuck, speaking on stage in front of a crowd, I’m going to screw it up!!!), then we’ll bring out Svetov to shift everyone’s attention to him and quickly gloss over my failure, and then a few more people for the sake of prestige (like a Montenegrin deputy). In the evening, there will be a concert on the same stage until the end, while the biggest bores will retreat to a quieter place for a panel discussion. Parallel to all this, there will be presentations of local Montelibero businesses and other initiatives, a separate area for children, and all-pervasive networking.

Due to the festival, large-scale construction in MTL-City is temporarily winding down: no new foundations are planned to be laid, and we are focusing on the finishing of what has already been built. However, the builders certainly intend to ramp up afterwards. The construction company recently underwent rebranding; it is now proudly called Tokenopolis and is entering the broad investment market. Those who believe that investing in the Montelibero investment fund is excessively conservative and yields too modest a return can buy tokens of a business already established in Montenegro without intermediaries and receive a more significant profit.

The investment fund itself is currently undergoing reorganization. It has accumulated various social burdens that conflict with the fund’s direct goals, namely generating profit. Therefore, a search has begun for ways to remove this non-core burden from it.

One of the ideas is to create a separate, purely charitable fund. The fund was established at the beginning of the summer and is called the Third Montelibero Fund; it has already invested in the autumn festival and plans to gradually take over both the niche of sponsoring various non-profit projects promoting libertarianism and the function of a mutual aid fund. As is known, such funds were quite common in the 19th century until the state usurped the field of social insurance. But mandatory state social insurance in Montenegro for immigrants is essentially meaningless. This means there is room for activity. I recently invested a symbolic ten euros in the fund to see how it works from the inside. I will keep you updated on its development.

Another idea for transforming the investment fund is the creation of some kind of libertarian association, in which the fund would join as an ordinary member alongside other people and organizations. This idea is currently being actively discussed; many objections have been raised, and there is even a slight chance that this will lead to a split in Montelibero even before Mikhail Svetov arrives in Montenegro.

One way or another, the fund has fulfilled its primary task: at the start of the project, it was effectively the only way to invest money or, conversely, to receive investment. Now, enough alternatives have appeared: a number of quite independent businesses that formed without the participation of the MTL fund and received financing from Montelibero participants. And heightened competition is a powerful stimulus for optimization, which is exactly what we are observing.

Legal systems that differ significantly from ours. Translation of the chapter on Islamic law.

I have been procrastinating for a nightmarely long time on the translation of David Friedman’s book about various exotic legal systems. But then I was sent a link in my DMs to Scott Alexander’s parody Legal Systems Very Unlike Our Own (Because I Just Made Them Up) — I felt ashamed and sat down to translate.

So, the fifth chapter of the book, on Islamic law, has been translated. As expected, it turned out to be similar to a refined version of Jewish law, and due to its inherent decentralization, libertarians can borrow quite a lot from it for their own purposes.

Please don’t forget to donate to this and all other translations, and I will try not to drag out this process too much.

Libertarianism, weapons, and the presumption of trust

Mikhail Pozharsky released a very good video with an incorrect title: Why we are afraid of weapons.

It would have been more correct to call it “Why they are afraid of weapons.” Or even better, “Why we are not afraid of weapons.” I am talking about us, libertarians, or, to be less broad, about the people of Montellibero, regarding whom I am absolutely certain about their attitude toward weapons, and it is indeed as Mikhail describes.

Indeed, by recognizing the right of one’s neighbor to be armed, we thereby show trust in them. The best gift for a child is a knife. What kind of child is without a knife? In all classical children’s literature, all children have knives. Well, alright, the male half.

I didn’t have a knife in my childhood. But my first boyfriend won me over by offering to show me, right from the start, the nagayka whip he had made for himself. He was the one who gave me my first knife; how could I not melt from such trust?

And although he was from some leftist sect, and we broke up after a couple of months, this episode played its important role. Every time I hear this “you want to give weapons to everyone so that they all kill each other,” I am sincerely surprised: first of all, why “give away” suddenly? Let them buy them themselves, or accept them as gifts from people who care for them; and secondly, why would they suddenly kill each other? Are they stupid or something?

This basic presumption of trust in people is very characteristic of libertarians. If a person is convinced that people are a gathering of vices, then they cannot become anything other than an etatist, hoping for someone’s firm hand to bring everyone to heel. They say there are also religious libertarians who, considering man a vessel of sin, rely on the Lord and imagine themselves as His instrument, but that is some overseas heresy that I cannot judge with certainty; I only know that it is not characteristic of the people of Montellibero.

In general, thanks to Mikhail for the good formulations; the video is food for thought.

There was also something there about psychopathy, but let Bitarch and Voluntarist reflect on that; it’s their theme.

What to do with the “free rider” effect in the case of ancap in the sphere of defense, security, and law?

Evgeny Fishkin

I have had to answer something like this many times, but it’s easier to answer briefly once more than to search for links to old posts.

General recommendation: increase the level of decentralization. The more decentralization there is in a particular sphere, the fewer free riders there are—there are no incentives left for them.

Decentralization in the sphere of defense means arming oneself. To a neighbor with a rifle, you are no longer just a neighbor, but also someone who will provide friendly cover fire. There is a non-illusory danger of an attack by a serious enemy—this is a great excuse for regular team-building activities. Have a few shots, then go drink beer.

Decentralization in the sphere of security is, conventionally speaking, about keeping private keys yourself rather than on an exchange. Installing an alarm system in your apartment so that security you’ve hired arrives on call, rather than some state police. And so on.

Decentralization in the sphere of law means settling things yourself, and if you cannot, turning to those you trust, rather than those appointed by other people. Most conflicts are resolved out of court even with a state, although, one would think, here is a centralized conflict resolution service provided to you, why not use it? Inconvenient? Exactly!

Why doesn’t this picture surprise us? Because it is natural behavior when there is no state.

Bitcoiners discuss Montelibero, continued

A month ago, the guys from the projects HypeCoinNews and Bitcorn tried to launch a joint podcast Bitcom in Bitcoin, inviting Soz for the first episode to tell them about Montelibero. There was a false start, and they had to discuss Montelibero among themselves. I later commented on one of the takes from this conversation on my page.

And so yesterday, they finally released the recording of the conversation with Soz.

I was briefly reprimanded for the inaccuracy of my comment: by freezing BTC in the Liquid sidechain, I receive LBTC coins in exchange, which I can then use to buy LMTL tokens or any others, and the fund, after selling me its tokens, is free to dispose of the received LBTC as it sees fit, including selling them for euros. But since the liquidity of this market is extremely low, the comment remains essentially valid: using this mechanism to accumulate resources offline is inconvenient.

And then the conversation continued for over an hour about other things (if anyone is ready to make timecodes, it would be very helpful—drop them in the comments). I listened and felt envious: I have to give a talk about Montelibero at the upcoming festival, and it certainly won’t be better than Soz’s, no matter how hard I try(

I’ll probably add one more thing to what Soz said about “broke people.” In principle, a broke person just needs to arrive in the country and start earning; they can completely ignore legalization. The culture of under-the-table payments is extremely developed here. Documents aren’t demanded at every step (and if they ask once every six months, there are no sanctions for saying your documents are at home). Difficulties only arise when trying to leave the country. But if you’re broke, why would you be traveling abroad! Stay in Montenegro, enjoy its—no joke—immense natural and cultural diversity, participate in the activities of the local community, and just don’t worry. Roma people make up five percent of the population here; learn from them the correct attitude toward the state (though it’s better to learn the attitude toward private property from us).

On the right of nations to self-determination

I recently happened to listen to a debate between two Russian emigrants about how to behave toward the Russian people. As it turned out, they sparked a heated discussion in one of the Montelibero chats, so I decided to join in with my own opinion.

Briefly, the positions of the parties:

Mikhail Svetov. The people must be loved; the people are victims of the regime; speaking out against the regime now is pointless, one must wait for the right moment; the people need a leader, a kind master, who will take power and rule guided by love.

Mark Feigin. We have no time to coddle the people, they have already squandered every opportunity; if the people do not overthrow Putin themselves, then there is no reason to be offended if others continue to decide everything for them; reparations will be taken, and the country will be dismantled; by the way, if it is dismantled, that’s not bad—there is a chance for the emergence of a Russian Taiwan, where Mark himself could settle his weary bones.

What causes the greatest repulsion in me throughout all this rhetoric is that everyone talks about some “Russian people.” But the right of nations to self-determination is not about some outsider labeling a particular community of people as a “nation” and allocating a piece of land for them. It is about people defining themselves as a nation, beginning to behave as a nation, and achieving their recognition as a nation. People have such a right—to self-determine as nations.

The people of Montelibero, for example, have already self-determined. Any person can affiliate themselves with our people, ensure that the people recognize them as one of their own, and in time decide on an “aliya”—physically relocating to the home of their people. If they are truly ours in spirit, a warm welcome awaits them.

Mark Feigin, with his dreams of a Russian Taiwan, unexpectedly turned out to be closer to us in spirit than Mikhail Svetov with his dreams of a kind Moscow master. But Mikhail possesses a very valuable ability to pique people’s interest in libertarianism, even if they previously had no clue about it. Later they will figure out the subject and gradually move away from Mikhail’s position, but as an appetizer, Svetov is good.

Therefore, we are very glad that Mikhail Svetov is planning to visit us at the end of September for the Montelibero festival (the website has just been created, please bear with us, it will be updated). And since he is coming, he will, of course, give a presentation. The topic has not been decided yet.

I will also be speaking, providing a brief overview of what the people of Montelibero have managed to achieve in a little over two years, and what still lies ahead for them.

But such presentations are only a small part of the program; after all, it’s not a conference, but a festival. Let’s have some fun—it motivates one to live.