Автор: Анкап-тян

Working through the news hook of the invasion anniversary

Since everyone is remembering how it was today, I will also go through some old materials. What I wrote about the war is easiest to find via the tag #war. Rereading it now, I realize that, in general, I expressed the key wish for the Russian people in the very first post on the day the invasion began: to scatter across the world, ridding themselves of their statehood. Now, a year later, I am glad to realize that a huge number of former Russian subjects are implementing this program, and I very much hope that they will live in peace and prosperity. Of course, I do not consider myself a Russian nationalist, and therefore I did not limit myself to anti-Russian posts, but also scribbled an anti-Ukrainian one, where, in essence, I wished for representatives of the brotherly people the same thing: the opportunity to freely move far away from the war, where they could build their peaceful lives far from interstate disputes. And this is despite the fact that, overall, I view the activity of the Ukrainian state in destroying the RF rather positively.

For those who wished to stay in the RF and become heroes, a recommendation was also provided, and I am glad that quite many followed it (or thought in a similar direction) — I am talking about burning down military enlistment offices. For expats, the most important tasks were identified as defeatist chatter and helping everyone fleeing the war. I can state that here too, in general, it was a total hit.

As for the positive agenda for international politics laid out by me, alas, it penetrates minds with terrible friction. What can one do — for the average bureaucrat, it is somehow too radical. Nevertheless, I note with satisfaction that the topic of the dismemberment of the RF is gradually ceasing to be marginal. Everyone is simply waiting for it to happen somehow on its own. And I am waiting too, for that matter. After all, territorial collapse goes much easier when the breaking-off scraps of the empire quickly receive international recognition, and for that, you shouldn’t come to me.

A month after the start of the invasion, it became clear that this was for the very long haul, which was the subject of my most pessimistic post, about the routinization of horror and about how not a single useful niche for activity remained for libertarian politics in the RF, and that both libertarian parties should get out of there in full force — it is a moral duty. Alas, only one party out of two left in full force; the other left hostages for the regime.

In April, the theme of future reparations began to play out on social media, and here, unexpectedly for myself, I took the same position as Mikhail Svetov, although within the framework of completely different argumentation. In short, reparations are an evil primarily for Ukrainians.

On July 1, I indicated that a transition from diversions to individual terror would soon be quite likely. At the end of August, the first fairly loud terrorist attack occurred, about which I did not fail to reflect. Perhaps, this was a collection of my most controversial reflections in connection with the war.

Before the elections, I published a rather beautiful idea, which, however, as far as I know, no one utilized. Then mobilization happened, and after putting out a couple more posts, I lost interest in further reflections on the war. Everything has been said, all conclusions have been drawn, sides have been chosen, there is no one left to persuade. Which village was captured today by Russian troops has finally become less important than the fact that the Montenegrin government nationalized the Kamenari-Lepetane ferry crossing.

It’s time, high time for aliens to invade or a machine uprising to occur, so that we can all with a clear conscience retrain from military analysts into xenopsychologists and artificial intelligence experts.

A sad picture of the state’s offensive against private business, which occupies me far more than the war somewhere in the east

An example of a truly libertarian reaction to state lawlessness

Not long ago, I told you about a major international terror attack carried out by the authorities of several countries against a small crypto exchange, Bitzlato. It seemed that everything in this story was already clear: the company was crushed, and the depositors’ money was lost.

However, the exchange team decided to preserve the service. Since the servers were seized and the bot’s code was compromised, they are currently rewriting the code; starting March 1, they promise to organize the possibility for every user to withdraw half of their deposit, and later gradually provide full access to the remaining funds.

I like the fighting spirit in the news published by the project team. No “bleh, meh, we are not to blame, force majeure, there’s nothing to be done, bye-bye.” Instead, the seize-ers are clearly called seize-ers, and they are almost openly sent away in the manner of the Russian warship—remember that ancient meme?

Yes, using centralized services is dangerous, but completely avoiding trust in certain intermediaries is a very costly endeavor. And that is why I especially value those centralized services that have, in one way or another, passed the “test of character.” Not every company can manage this. For instance, the Bitfinex exchange managed to reimburse depositors for losses from a major hack in its time, while the btc-e exchange could not survive a raid by bandits in uniform. I very much hope that the Bitzlato service will pass its test of character.

How do libertarian institutions regulate advertising?

Will market regulation of advertising be more effective than state regulation? For example, advertising for psychoactive substances, child pornography, or gambling.

Anonymous question

The question of how libertarian institutions regulate something is, in essence, a question of how market institutions regulate something.

The person placing the advertisement does so to increase the return on their activity. In the limit, they would like to force everyone and anyone to buy their product for any amount of money by a simple act of will. In other words, they would like to take the position of a regulator of consumption.

The person consuming the advertisement wants to receive information as a result about which goods are available on the market, how they satisfy their particular current or potential needs, and where these goods can be found. In the limit, they would like to force the producer by a simple act of will to do exactly what the consumer needs, right at the moment of the order, and deliver it right to where the consumer indicates. In other words, they would like to take the position of a regulator of production.

Finally, there are those who produce the advertising and show it to the consumer. In the limit, they would like to force product manufacturers by a simple act of will to pay them the lion’s share of the product’s value for the right to sell this product to the consumer. In other words, they would like to take the position of a regulator of sales.

How do market institutions regulate the relations between these listed groups? Through a multitude of spontaneously emerging feedback loops. Advertising is too expensive — producers try to minimize their purchases, and the consumer is forced to spend a huge amount of effort to find anything outside of their daily basket. There is too much advertising — the consumer develops banner blindness, and it becomes ineffective. As a result, the advertiser stops paying for impressions, preferring to pay for results — and the advertising market is forced to restructure in favor of more targeted advertising tools. This leaves both the advertisers satisfied — their ads give the maximum return per unit of funds invested — and the consumers — they receive information exactly about what they want, and unnecessary things do not clutter their eyes. For each of the stakeholder groups, the situation ultimately turns out to be imperfect, but it is a kind of dynamic compromise that more or less satisfies everyone. And as soon as it stops being satisfactory, a fairly rapid restructuring of the market occurs.

And what about state regulation? The state is a regulator of production, consumption, and sales. In the limit, it would like to determine every aspect of the life of each of its subjects by a simple act of will (by “desires of the state” I here mean a somewhat simplified reflection on the activities of its individual functionaries, as well as the persons who make up its support group — “statists”). The extent to which the state is successful in this pursuit is also determined by spontaneously emerging feedback loops. If it succeeded in selling the consumer the necessity of fighting child pornography, the consumer will tolerate difficulties in receiving the corresponding advertising, and the increasing cost of the corresponding services. If it failed to sell the necessity of fighting alcohol consumption, the consumer enjoys the fact that they are at least not imprisoned for consumption, even though advertising, for example, is restricted.

Now, your question essentially concerned whether market institutions can allow third parties to restrict the advertising of certain products in which both the producers of the product and its consumers are interested. How effectively these third parties can perform the role of the state in this case, without being the state and without resorting to direct violence.

Answer: they can, but not as effectively as state institutions. The task of an influence group is to make a certain consumer behavior reprehensible, to make the person feel ashamed of it and, conversely, proud of avoiding it. If your advertising campaign proves successful — congratulations, your opponent is marginalized. If it proves unsuccessful — well, then you yourself end up as the marginals. Everything is fair.

Ancaps’ love for children — moving into the practical plane

I recently had the opportunity to present my book at the Montellibero club. There were about twenty-five people; no one threw tomatoes—on the contrary, they threw donations. Despite the fact that the decision to speak was spontaneous and not properly prepared, it seemed to go quite well.

However, as a result, I was asked to create some kind of adaptation for children, so that there would be a way to explain clearly to them what these strange games their parents play are all about, and to involve them in these very games.

Well, games it is. I want to make one game in a purely conversational genre, as a trial run. We will play “The Kind Tsar.” A child inherits a kingdom and wants to make their subjects happy. They can ask how things are going in their kingdom, give orders, and find out from me what is reported back to them. I am mainly interested in what questions the children will actually ask. Considering that I don’t have any of my own, this should be a mutually beneficial experience. I think that within a couple of weeks, I will decide to hold the first game there, at the club.

Another game will require more serious development; I want to create a board game about life under etatism. In the basic module, I want to offer the roles of employee, entrepreneur, official, and politician. The goal is to show their relationships as simply as possible, but without losing realism. I also want the game to leave room for ethical decisions.

Such are my ambitious plans. I spent over a year tinkering with the book on ancap, so I hope I’ll manage this significantly faster.

I also strongly hope that in the near future, I will have much more free time and will be able to devote as much attention to the channel as it deserves.

#freeLegkodymov

Yesterday, security forces from the USA, France, Spain, Portugal, and Cyprus carried out a loud act of terror, destroying Bitzlato, a bitcoin-to-ruble exchange service that had been operating successfully since 2016 (the turnover of other crypto and fiat constituted a very modest part of the total turnover), and arresting its founder, Anatoly Legkodymov. These terrorists issued a boastful press release, promising to continue pursuing the cryptocurrency business worldwide, regardless of the formal boundaries of jurisdictions.

Anatoly is accused of neglecting the state-imposed identity verification of users, collaborating with darknet markets, and performing other actions that are completely legitimate for any libertarian, while consistently satisfying his clients. In other words, he was arrested for making our lives better. Now he faces five years of imprisonment, and, of course, his business will be destroyed, and our money, which was kept in the company’s wallets for operational needs, will be seized by the state.

I had to say goodbye to a certain amount of bitcoin, as well as remove all recommendations for using the destroyed service from my website. I hope the next generation of crypto exchangers will already be using Lightning, and there will be no question of storing funds in third-party accounts. For now, the most reliable way to exchange cryptocurrency for fiat was and remains exchange through trusted acquaintances.

The well-known statist Leonid Volkov, in his channel, approves of the actions of the American authorities, after which he finally ceases to exist as a personality and begins to exist as a faggot. His beloved Navalny, whom he so touchingly demands be released, personally went to surrender to the Russian authorities, ignoring the shouts of “don’t go in – it’ll kill you.” At the time, the man diligently distanced himself from the USA, indulging the whims of the local legislation as much as possible—but he had the imprudence to physically appear on the territory of this terrorist state, for which he paid the price.

What do I propose?

First, of course, no donations to the FBK—they are our enemies, even if they stand against Putin. Unsubscribe and ignore.

Second, if possible, avoid the USA (I realize this sounds something like “do not overindulge in black caviar”).

Third, we see that storing money in centralized services is fraught not only with scams from these very services, but, on the contrary, with the confiscation of your money by the state, if these services do their job truly well. So, no matter how attractive online wallets on various exchanges may be, let’s maintain hygiene and keep money only under our own direct control.

I am not well-versed in the intricacies of legal squabbles, so I will not undertake to call for any actions in this field in attempts to recover my pennies. But I hope that everyone who approves of this act of terror will thereby ruin their reputation in the eyes of the widest possible circle of people, and preferably specifically those they depend on.

What should libertarians who observe the NAP do in such cases?

Montenegrin fishermen are complaining about Albanians, who blocked the Bojana River with an iron net and are catching almost all the fish.

In this situation, we see a typical case of state interference in the market, which inevitably leads to the most unpleasant consequences. As can be understood from the article, it is not just some random Albanian fishermen who blocked the river, but a very specific entrepreneur to whom the Albanian state granted a fishing concession.

Elinor Ostrom explains in detail in her book Governing the Commons how such problems are solved without state intervention. In short, the community of resource users gradually develops rules for use that minimize conflicts surrounding the trade, and this usually looks like a kind of sliding schedule of who can fish where and when, so as not to elbow each other and to ensure there is enough for everyone.

In this case, the state has left only options such as enduring it and catching the scraps from the master’s table in the lower reaches of the river, or fighting—for example, by carrying out sabotage against that very net, or against the concessionaire, or against the officials who patronize him.

Another option, for the peace-loving but persistent, is to bring the problem to a higher level, which is essentially an appeal to some external arbitrator. This is likely what the Montenegrin fishing association is currently doing. I wish them success; I love eels.

How should the poor, who cannot afford private police or buy weapons, defend themselves under ancap?

Is there perhaps a benefit for the rich in protecting the poor? And what if there are no rich people somewhere, but only gangs providing “protection” to neighborhoods under threat of violence? Or will such a “ghetto” eventually heal itself over time?

Anonymous question

Today, the weapons market is extremely regulated and largely stigmatized, as a result of which the demand for weapons is predictably lower than it would be in a completely free market. Therefore, there are every reason to believe that due to the expansion of the market under ancap, weapons will be more accessible in terms of both variety and price, not to mention the absence of any arbitrary restrictions. And if even now certain types of self-defense weapons, such as pepper sprays, cost mere pennies and are available even to those with the most modest incomes, then under a free market, things will be quite good in this regard.

What should people do who do not want to pay some security organizations to maintain order in the area where they live? Naturally, do it themselves. After all, we maintain order in the house if we don’t want to pay cleaning services. Similarly, there is no problem in sticking a barrel out the window upon a neighbor’s alarm signal and ensuring that everyone in the line of fire has calmed down and returned to peaceful activities.

In essence, the only thing for which professional help is more likely to be needed under ancap in terms of maintaining order is searching for stolen goods, since theft is a clandestine misappropriation, and a pistol in the pocket does not protect against it by default. Well, here either insurance works, or a simple desire for revenge, corrected by economic expediency. Either way, the victim either searches for the missing item themselves, hires detectives, or the insurance company hires detectives wishing to recoup the cost of paying the insurance premium.

Can gangs that forcibly hold a particular territory under their “protection” exist stably under ancap? Actually, such gangs are called states, and the only thing that keeps them from being destroyed is the consent of those under their protection to put up with such a state of affairs. This will also determine the stability of criminal ghettos under ancap. An additional factor of instability for them is complete freedom of migration. Overly active thugs will simply discover one fine day that everyone has fled their territory. This can be easily observed in criminal enclaves such as certain US cities managed by overzealous Democrats: people simply move away to quieter places. So there are indeed incentives for such ghettos to eventually heal themselves or disappear, and the only thing that can prolong their existence is stupid, irrational submission. It is precisely to eliminate this that ancaps like me conduct their propaganda)))

Now give the purse back to the girl and get the hell out of here!

2022, results

It is a bit funny now to reread with what enthusiasm I looked forward to the new year 2022. Nevertheless, this enthusiasm was largely justified.

The Montelibero project is developing successfully, and while a year ago we all gathered to celebrate in one house, now such an opportunity is not even close; there are over a hundred of us in Montenegro. At the MTLcity site, the construction of the first two houses is nearing completion, the third has been laid, plus a geodesic dome has been erected, where seasonal residency can be tested. In Bar, the libertarian club is flourishing, where people regularly gather to hang out, drink delicious coffee, attend lectures, play board games, participate in podcast recordings, and so on. The capital of the MTL investment fund already exceeds 170 thousand tokens, and the token price has grown from 1 euro to slightly over 3. The fund has more than 600 shareholders. There are already so many tokens of all sorts and colors circulating around the Montelibero project that I have lost count, and each corresponds to some activity that, at one point or another, required tokenization. In short, things are very lively on this front, and so far it is not apparent that we are hitting any ceiling.

On the other hand, the activity around my channel did find its ceiling. The number of subscribers decreased by a hundred over the year, and the number of publications also dropped noticeably. The voice-over for the text Mechanics of Freedom was completed and my own book on ancap was finished, while translations of several other books are moving along quite smoothly. No significant community ever formed around the channel, and now it is no longer required, since there is Montelibero. By the way, they also recently summarized the year’s results there and, in particular, compiled a list of the most significant personalities for the project. And while in the first year I would clearly have been in the top three, now I am only in the second five, which, however, seems to me a completely objective assessment.

The strangest direction of my channel management was a series of anti-Russian posts where I allowed myself to give recommendations on what to do with Russia. Calls to burn military recruitment offices were successful; all others—not so much. Russia has not collapsed yet, but it is heading that way. However, it is not so important what happens to this state, but what happens to Russians, and for them, I maintain my previous wish. I would like Russians to scatter across the world as widely as possible, settle in as comfortably as possible, preserve and develop their great Russian culture, and forget the Russian state like a bad dream, or, demonstrating their historical responsibility, businesslike-ly invest in its dismantling.

Overall, I am satisfied with the past year. In the coming year, I still want to complete all current prolonged translations, record an audio version of the book on ancap, and, of course, continue to cover the construction of our libertarian utopia in sunny Montenegro. Happy New Year to everyone!

The Andor series and a little bit about tactics

I watched Andor. Very interesting, unexpectedly mature for this franchise, and quite timely.

Naturally, while examining Emperor Palpatine’s regime, I couldn’t help but think of another dictator starting with P, from our own galaxy. Of course, there are many differences between them. The Empire has no external enemies; it simply has temporarily uncontrollable outskirts, periodically rebellious provinces, and so on. In short, it’s not the RF, but rather something like medieval China. On the other hand, the RF has no parliamentary opposition. In the Empire, the rebel movement is funded by local aristocracy and consists primarily of individual entrepreneurs. In the RF, the core of the protest is also made up of freelancers and other remote workers, and it is funded by crowdfunding. Big business in both cases has completely merged with the state. In general, there are many interesting parallels.

Now I would like to see what the series tells us about the methods of the rebel movement.

A great deal of attention is paid to conspiracy. To the point that operatives can easily be sacrificed, and even eliminated by their own, if there is a threat of exposing key coordinating figures. It’s not like that in the RF, because the protest can be coordinated from abroad, even without hiding, while remaining sufficiently safe, whereas no state borders can protect one from the Empire.

The idea of funding rebels through the expropriation of imperial property is not new and is deeply rooted, among other things, in the Russian Empire. Against this backdrop, the Russian opposition’s emphasis on exposing the corruption schemes of the imperial elite looks completely counterproductive.

The theme of tits “militant wing vs. moderate wing” is not sufficiently explored. Although the rebels seemingly have sympathizers in the Senate, nowhere from a high podium does one hear: “See, this is what your local excesses lead to; why escalate? Let’s not push desperate people toward extremist actions, since the war ended long ago—isn’t it time to loosen the screws?” Instead, the parliamentary opposition is guided by an agenda that does not correlate with the militant actions, which weakens its rhetorical power. And soon, as is well known, the Senate will be completely dissolved.

I was very pleased by the character who, in the pauses between preparing for a combat operation, wrote a book about ancap Resistance manifesto. I truly felt a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, there are no social networks or even Telegram channels in the Empire to promote such manifestos, which heavily centralizes any organizational activity.

The series captures a pattern noted by James Scott: it is precisely the peoples oppressed by the empire that manifest their ethnicity and various unique cultures, while people digested by the empire become unified and lose the traits of any ethnicity. At the same time, in essence, ethnicity can easily be created from scratch based on any traditions extracted from dusty closets—or stylized as such. Alex Rozov writes about the same in the Meganesian cycle, and any community opposing an empire, even libertarians, for example, can reproduce the same if they wish to strengthen their identity. For instance, we are not just some arrived Russes, but already quite proper Monteliberians.

The reader might find my selection of series features for review strange. But I shouldn’t just rave about its artistic merits. They exist, and if it weren’t for them, there would be no point in digging deeper.

The Russian hinterland is well portrayed in the series…

Tell me everything about inheritance under ancap

How will the order of inheritance be distributed without a will? What if there are no heirs? And if my debts exceed the inheritance and there is no guarantor/insurance, will they pass to someone else?

Neprizivnoy

Ancap implies the decentralization of dispute resolution procedures, which automatically means the absence of rigid rules imposed from above regulating the issue of inheritance. Therefore, I cannot say exactly how a particular piece of property or debts will be divided, but I can speculate on how this issue will be resolved locally in substance.

Rights are claims that have been accepted. Upon the death of a person who owned certain property, various people may raise claims to that property. Who eventually gets the property and in what shares depends primarily on who accepts the corresponding claims and how easily. In the most obvious cases, for example, if the deceased had a bitcoin wallet and their household members also had access to the keys, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to contest their claims to own the bitcoins. Similarly, if the deceased lived in their own house, their household members automatically become the factual owners of the house after their death, and contesting their rights to this inheritance would mean putting forward a claim to evict them, which requires extremely strong grounds. It is likely that relatives or friends of the deceased living separately would find it difficult to justify their rights to any share in something where other people were already factual co-owners with the benefactor.

But what about property that the deceased owned solely and to which their cohabitants have no direct access? For example, they owned a company. The keys to the company office are held by the cleaning lady, but it is unlikely that her claims to seize the office based on factual access to the premises would be taken seriously by anyone. Nevertheless, if none of the deceased’s relatives took a direct part in the business and no instructions regarding the property were left by the deceased, it would not be surprising if the company were stripped by its employees or misappropriated by someone in management — either individually or in cooperation with some colleagues. This would simply mean that the property rights to this business were poorly established. Of course, the more established the surrounding market, the less likely such a situation is, and most likely the ownership of the company has long been tokenized, and the rules for the transfer of tokens to other hands were described, including taking into account the possible death of the owner. For instance, the Montelibero Foundation and the entire tokenomics developed around it are only a year and a half old, and we already have such possibilities fixed in certain agreements — after all, predictability of rules is a very important element of the investment climate.

Finally, let’s talk about debts. Of course, a creditor’s claim for the return of a debt is quite strong. Therefore, it is clear that in conditions of a developed market and properly recorded obligations, it will not be difficult for the creditor to recover a share of the deceased’s property toward the debt. If the amount of debts clearly exceeds the amount of divisible assets, then we have a bankruptcy case. In this situation, all claimants to the property will have to agree on who gets how much, and if an amicable agreement cannot be reached, then recourse to a court will be inevitable — they cannot exactly go to war, after all.

In general, I want to note that ancap is not only anarchy, but also capitalism, meaning developed market relations. All existing legal findings, especially from the sphere of common law, will not disappear, and in various disputed cases, they will certainly be appealed to. Foolish litigation, reducing to a competition of whose lawyer is more expensive and who paid the judge more, is unlikely under ancap due to the decentralized nature of law enforcement. But the desire to assert one’s rights itself will not disappear, which means that work for lawyers will not vanish.