Автор: Анкап-тян

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the chapter on Smith and justice.

Alex Dvoretsky chipped in another 6,000 rubles, which means a fresh chapter from Eric Mack is on its way, presenting a fairly original theory of justice by a certain David Schmidtz. I have just started a new and quite time-consuming job, so as is my habit, I am posting the text without notes for now; they will follow later—otherwise, I would have to delay publication by another day.

It was interesting to translate because the author under consideration is anything but a dogmatist (dogmatists are dry and boring in their meaningless uncompromisingness). In my own book, I limited the consideration of justice only to conflicts, stating that justice is the feeling of proportionality between the damage inflicted and the value of the object of conflict. Schmidtz, however, expands this concept, stating that I am speaking only of desert, whereas there are other irreducible elements of justice, such as reciprocity, equality, and need. And by building fair norms based on a single element, a person will most likely begin to contradict other elements of justice. In short, Schmidtz offers plenty to chew on.

Metaverses from Libertarian Band

Libertarian Band has released a very high-quality video about metaverses, integrating this trendy topic into the general frameworks of libertarian strategy—in other words, showing the prospects that open up for us as this phenomenon continues to develop. For some time, this new space will remain a territory of relative freedom, and if we strive to avoid centralization in this sphere from the start, there is a chance to keep this freedom under reliable protection.

At the same time, the ideas regarding the merging of the real world and the metaverse via NFT and RFID seem too raw to me for now, and it is not certain that any breakthroughs can be achieved here at all: nothing can prevent someone from attaching a buffalo NFT token to an elephant, and in this situation, a remote user will not even be able to follow Kozma Prutkov’s advice and “not believe their eyes,” because in their metaverse, they will see a buffalo, period.

2021, results

I have reread the summaries of past years: 2018 (joyful), 2019 (confident), and 2020 (gloomy). Fortunately, I managed to reverse the trend, and I look forward to 2022 with much more enthusiasm than I once did for 2021.

The year was devastating for the Russian opposition, to which I belonged to some extent, although I didn’t pay much attention to politics. Many left the country under the threat of immediate criminal prosecution, fleeing into a void, and I imagine it was not easy for them. I was far luckier: I left the country to build an offline libertarian utopia, and this utopia, Montelibero, has made decent progress in its implementation. There are already two dozen of us who moved to Montenegro to build a local ersatz-ancap, and on New Year’s Eve, for the first time in the project’s history, we will gather together at one table (one bomb could take us all out). Nevertheless, I still hope that we won’t be hit by a bomb, and that next year we will build a sufficiently reliable platform here for receiving and settling libertarians.

Another milestone for the channel was that I finally completely translated Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom, and it is the largest of my projects implemented so far. Now, as a bonus, Oleg Teterevlev is recording the audiobook, and as of today, he has reached chapter 45 out of 66. I think the audiobook will also be completed in 2022. The translation of three more books is being carried out in parallel, encouraged by your donations, and will sooner or later be finished as well—at least after The Machinery of Freedom, I am now certain that I am capable of tackling something large-scale without abandoning it halfway.

A third important undertaking that is in full swing is the writing of my own book on ancap. The first part, containing an outline of the libertarian worldview, is completely ready; the second part—about life under ancap—is being written. Who knows—maybe I’ll manage to finish it in 2022 as well.

As for the channel’s metrics, they can be seen below on the postcard kindly sent by the statbot. In terms of the number of readers, I’ve hit a plateau; the channel turned out to be a mid-tier one, and it’s unlikely to grow at a noticeable pace without aggressive marketing. This doesn’t really bother me now, because other interesting activities have been found. Again, while my readers may be few in number, they are proactive: among the settlers in Montelibero, more than half joined the project specifically through my channel, which is, of course, flattering. I hope this trend continues in the future.

Happy New Year to all libertarians. Do not be afraid to take on ambitious projects, stick by each other, and do not forget that against the backdrop of the main enemy, small internal quarrels mean nothing.

A book about ancap – describing the problems of the world

I am continuing work on the second part of the book about ancap. If at first I briefly presented a beautiful picture of what an ideal anarcho-capitalist society looks like, now I am starting to explain in meticulous detail what obstacles might get in our dancer’s way. To start, I’m talking about the general imperfection of the world, and so far I have covered the problem of fuzzy boundaries and the problem of externalities.

Beyond that, I’ve taken a pause to think about whether to dump some more global problems here, or to move on to approaches for resolving them.

Montelibero project news, issue 8

In the previous issue, I mostly talked about how the work on the land of our future settlement is progressing, and now, perhaps, I will start with this topic as it is the most grounded.

We have already laid some of the roads inside the settlement, cleared some stumps, started digging a septic tank, and so on—in short, the routine is underway. Importantly, it rained heavily for almost two weeks without interruption, and we were able to verify that the road was not washed away. However, in one place, we further improved the drainage afterward so that the stream flows along the shoulder rather than wherever it pleases.

Equipment for a small solar power plant is expected to arrive this week—we hesitated for a long time about whether to get involved in this, but electricity prices from the central grid are expected to rise significantly in the foreseeable future, so it seems that autonomous generation is exactly what the doctor ordered right now. This electricity is intended to power the trailer so that we can finally station a security guard there. As for the remaining energy, we are thinking of using it for Bitcoin mining. As an experiment, an old miner was purchased, which is currently buzzing at my home, and after the power plant is installed, it will move to the settlement.

But it’s not just about Bitcoin. Specifically for hardcore gold bugs, the Montelibero fund has released gold tokens, and several ten-gram bars were purchased with the funds collected. Some of them have already been delivered to buyers, while some remain on the fund’s balance. Tokens can be purchased in any fractional shares (worldwide) and exchanged for bars in ten-gram lots (only for residents of Montenegro).

Speaking of tokens. Along with the development of the project’s tokenomics, associated specific risks are increasing: unknown parties have already released several fake tokens on the Stellar blockchain that imitate ours. To avoid falling for such things, I recommend relying only on the tokens you see on the fund’s balance. This incident with scammers has spurred us to try to move to the Liquid Network, as tokens on a Bitcoin sidechain are, of course, far more substantial. If anyone is knowledgeable about this, feel free to drop by the developers’ chat.

However, we are not being promoted by scammers alone. You already know about the Libertarian Band video dedicated to our project. In addition, a local Montenegrin news site and a large Italian community, Instituto liberale – Gruppo nazionale, have written about us. For now, they are writing based on what can be found online, but I believe that reports from the site itself in the media are just around the corner. This motivates us to settle into our construction site as quickly as possible.

Libertarian Band filmed a video about Montelibero!

In my monthly project progress reports, I tend to write more about boring matters, such as how many roads the ancaps have built, but the guys from Libertarian Band examined the entire Montelibero project starting from the basic ideas that formed its foundation, and the result is a quite decent analysis. Although it is felt, of course, that over there in Russia the material is presented in its own context, as a reproach to local libertarian politicians, but from the side, such animation of the material looks rather amusing.

I hope that in preparing the next video dedicated to our project, they will not limit themselves to setting up a wallet and familiarizing themselves with the tokenomics, but will also send a film crew to the site. And by that time, I hope we will have managed to build something, and it will be possible to live in our settlement. However, you are not obliged to wait for a new film to be released; nothing stops you from visiting us as early as tomorrow, meeting the project participants who have already moved to the country, and seeing everything with your own eyes.

Eric Mack, Libertarianism. Chapter “Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s Meta-Norms for Flourishing Individuals” was translated.

I received a generous donation of 1,000 rubles through boosty for the translation of the next chapter of Eric Mack’s book Libertarianism, but unfortunately, only one. However, the chapter itself is relatively modest in length, so I decided to start working on it without waiting for more money to accumulate.

From time to time, one reads that certain ethical systems have deontological or consequentialist foundations. However, sometimes virtue ethics is also singled out as a separate category. According to Eric Mack, the arguments of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl rest precisely on this third leg, deriving from virtue ethics the same familiar principles. Thus, libertarian ethics can proudly sit on this tripod and proclaim truths from it that will be firmly grounded, no matter the listener’s philosophical approach.

I feel compelled to remind you, a little more insistently than usual, that various labor-intensive projects like translations progress much better if you donate—simply because without your money coming in, I’m more distracted by trying to earn it elsewhere. And it’s also worth keeping in mind that I currently have three books being translated simultaneously, and your donations are your vote for which one will be finished first.

How will bankruptcy work under ancap?

anonymous mouse Bazhenova

During the Adam Smith Readings, I was live-tweeting individual theses of the presentations, and I specifically noted the report by Artem Seversky, which was dedicated to the phenomenon of bankruptcy from the perspective of economics and normative philosophy. Artem was also kind enough to publish a text version of his report on Liter (I have advertised it before; it is a blog dedicated to libertarian theory under the auspices of the LPR—the one of the two LPRs that includes Fedyukin, Bazhenov, and, in fact, Seversky).

In short, the report boils down to the following. Bankruptcy is a situation of simultaneous claims of legitimate entitlements to a single mass of assets that is insufficient to satisfy them. Such a situation can arise even if all the transactions that led to it were voluntary and libertarian principles were not violated—and yet, there is legal uncertainty: it is impossible to satisfy all claims simultaneously, which means a certain procedure for their satisfaction must be developed.

Next, Artem points out that for the procedure of satisfying such claims to not violate libertarian principles itself, it must follow certain rules. One must account for the possibility that different claims may have different priorities because they arose from different legal relationships. It is one thing to have an obligation to pay wages or pay for the delivery of equipment, and another to settle with an investor. It will also be necessary to reconcile the different time preferences of creditors: some are willing to accept installment payments if they can get more, while others are eager to recover the debt as quickly as possible. In effect, for libertarians, this means the necessity of recognizing common property, however much they may wish to reduce everything to private property alone. Finally, it should be considered that legitimate claims to the debtor’s property are held not only by those who have already demanded payment, but also by those who have not yet done so—however, if the bankruptcy procedure affects their interests as well, it will also draw them into the general conflict. For example, if a house is seized for an unpaid business development loan, the interests of not only the debtor but also his household members will suffer, and they will have legitimate claims against the creditors. In other words, Artem argues that to develop a bankruptcy procedure, libertarians will inevitably have to arrive at the concept of legal entities, however much they may want to reduce everything to personal responsibility without unnecessary red tape.

So how will bankruptcies work under ancap? Naturally, by using all the theoretical developments created back during estatism, but filtering out at least those norms that imply state intervention. Bankruptcy law currently differs from state to state; similarly, under ancap, it will differ across various societies—some nuances will be in use in some places, others in others, while maintaining certain general framework principles. If the counterparties have not agreed in advance on which norms to apply, they will have to improvise, which will likely mean that in settling the conflict, the court will first need to determine which specific bankruptcy law would be most comfortable for all participants in the process, as well as for the judge’s notions of justice.

Of course, under ancap, some communities may retain norms that violate libertarian principles. For example, in the village of Tatarkovo, it might be accepted that a debtor is liable for a debt, no matter what it is, with all their property and even their own body as part of that property. This circumstance will simply have to be kept in mind by potential counterparties of the residents of Tatarkovo village. We can only assume that as greater trust is established in society and as time preferences decrease, business practices—including in conflict situations such as bankruptcies—will evolve toward greater leniency, at least toward honest entrepreneurs who misjudged the risks.

Legal systems that differ greatly from ours. Translation of the chapter on Iceland during the saga period.

I read my first saga by mistake when I was about twelve. I was sure that this plump volume would contain tales of gods and heroes, something like the legends and myths of Ancient Greece. Everything turned out to be completely different and far more interesting, and it clearly influenced why ancap seems like a perfectly natural and reasonable system to me. David Friedman also relied heavily on the material of the sagas when constructing his proposals for a stateless system of law under capitalism. And finally, in his book about legal systems that differ from those we are used to, he also began specifically with the section on Iceland.

Therefore, when it became clear that simply translating this book as a commissioned work at a fixed rate didn’t work out, I decided to continue the translation using my traditional donation scheme, and to perk myself up, I grabbed a chapter out of order, and the most delicious one right away.

I will finish the chapter notes later; that’s already a bit tedious. In the meantime, I will be very glad for your money, by the volume of which I can judge how interested you are in this specific translation and how briskly I should tackle the next chapter.

On Boosty, I created a separate goal for this translation, but you are, of course, free to use all the other tools listed on the donations page. By the way, there is another innovation there: since we have developed all sorts of local tokenomics here in Montelibero, I will gladly accept donations in our own internal tokens.

Animal cruelty under ancap. A question for Alexander Tatarkov.

Do you believe that child pornography and animal cruelty (torture and abuse of animals) would be fully legalized under libertarianism and anarcho-individualism in particular?

Semyon Persunov (question accompanied by a donation in the amount of 0.00011718 BTC)

Answered by Alexander Tatarkov (original publication on Yandex.Zen and on Bastion):

Well, it seemed interesting to me not so much the question itself, but the fact that it is apparently asked by a libertarian, or even an anarchist.

It would be one thing if an apologist for the state had voiced it. We are used to that. Standard scare tactics like: “without the state everyone will shoot each other,” “without the state everyone will rape each other,” “without the state everyone will die because there will be no hospitals,” “without the state there will be no education or science,” and even “without the state women won’t give birth to children(!!!)” should gradually be squeezed out of the consciousness of the unaware through consistent and reasoned propaganda. Much like I do in the video “Why Do We Need a State?”. An anarchist and libertarian should sow the rational, the kind, the eternal, rather than inventing additional apocalypse scenarios that supposedly await us if we are left without the sovereign’s supervision.

After such questions, not only the average person, but even well-prepared individuals should get the impression that anarchy is a paradise for pedophiles, animal abusers, perverts, thugs, robbers, rapists, and murderers. And sane, adequate people in a stateless society will lead a miserable existence under siege, continuously escaping from all this zombie apocalypse.

Answering the question.

My favorite example. Very illustrative. I used it in the video about the right to self-defense:

If tomorrow at 06:00 Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder) were abolished and everyone were given an automatic rifle, the percentage of murders would not increase by even 1%. Because I cannot imagine who I would want to kill right now. In other words, a person doesn’t go around gunning everyone down not because the state forbids it, but for a million other reasons (morality, ethics, religion, laziness, impracticality). Well, simply put, I have absolutely no reason to kill anyone. And I don’t have much of a desire either… I mean, I have a gun in my safe. I’d have to get up, open the safe, load it, put on a coat, go outside, chase someone, shoot… And they might shoot back for all I know… Why on earth would I do all that???

At the same time, if a drugged-out, wide-eyed junkie were to break into my house with the clear intention of killing, raping, robbing, and dismembering everyone, I would, of course, kill him. And Article 105 of the Criminal Code would definitely be the last thing on my mind in such a situation. That is, if a murder does not happen, it does not happen not because a law exists. And if it does happen, the existence of a law has no effect on it.

Now, to the animal abusers. I’m not entirely sure if there is currently an article in the law providing punishment for animal cruelty, but I have no desire to abuse animals. Nor does the vast majority of people. That is, I don’t gouge out the eyes of puppies not because I’m afraid I’ll be fined 500 rubles, but simply because I don’t want to gouge out the eyes of puppies! And for what reason would I want to do that once the state is gone?

It should be understood here that in a stateless society, the state, its institutions, control, and repressive apparatus will disappear. But morality, ethics, empathy, reason, compassion, and mercy will not go anywhere. The first is not connected to the second at all. Consequently, there will certainly not be more thugs with the abolition of the state. There will be fewer.

And here is why:

Currently, if a person sees someone abusing an animal, they cannot punch the abuser in the face (well, okay, I, for example, might), because the abuser will snitch to the cops, and that kind person will be imprisoned. For the same reason, everyone walks past when a grandmother is being robbed, a resisting girl is being dragged into a car, or children are being raped. Because the state court stands guard over the interests of every thug. And the one who steps in faces jail time in 100% of cases if they so much as touch them with a finger. Therefore, right now they feel completely untouchable and safe, and they not only abuse animals, old women, girls, and children, but also post it all on social networks.

What would happen in a similar situation in a stateless society?

As I described in the video “Lynch Law, Agora Court, or State Court? The Right to Judicial Protection under Anarchy”, seeing such filth, I would boldly punch the animal abuser in the face, shoot the grandmother’s robber, the girl’s rapist, and carve up the pedophile-maniac-dismemberer. Next. I am invited to a Lynch Court. They ask why I punched the face, shot the rapist, and carved up the maniacs. Well, I say: “Just because… they were raping, robbing, torturing defenseless animals…” The judge asks the crowd if I am guilty and if I deserve punishment or leniency. The crowd says: “Good job, man! That’s how it should be! Let’s chip in for his bullets. The man spent his own for the common good! Now bring those thugs here! To the stake with them (on a pole, on an aspen… underline as needed).” Well, that’s basically it. Everyone is satisfied. Everyone is smiling. Except for the maniac and the thug.

Thus, Lynch Law (Agora court) is a guarantee that a stateless society will be not a paradise, but a hell for every thug. They will find themselves in the most disadvantageous position. Everyone will beat them, and there will be no one to stand up for them.

Consequently, the existence of some written law prohibiting animal cruelty or the rape of minors will simply not be necessary.

And in general, “legalization” without a state—what does that even mean!?!?!?! Well, yes. There will be no law issued by a parliament… But that is no guarantee that there will be happiness for animal abusers, pedophiles, and maniacs.

And it’s not as if I’ve just imagined these constructions in my head. Not at all. I had the chance to observe something similar personally in the early 90s, when I had the honor and pleasure of living and working actively in a private plot farm (LPH) in the Irkutsk region. So, there was 1 district police officer for every 4 LPHs (staff shortage). From us to the nearest LPH was 40 km. Everyone was armed (it’s the taiga). The vast majority of residents of the LPHs were former inmates, many of whom had served sentences such as that after which no one expects you and there is nowhere to return. And when, in my youth and ignorance, I mentioned a license (for weapons and hunting), they looked at me as if I were mentally ill. Either to pity me or to punch me in the face—I was speaking in incomprehensible words, but seemingly not using profanity…

Gunshots in the taiga are not rare at all. And whether a bear was shot or a cop—who was going to run around and find out about every single shot? Therefore, the cop tried not to step on anyone’s toes. He came once every 3 months, nobody had been killed, thank god, crossed himself and left. And if he started asking about licenses—well, again, gunshots… And, most importantly, hardly anyone would look for him. At the time, by law, searches stopped after 3 days. Because in 3 days, if not the wolves, the ants would eat the corpse. And if the corpse fell into a river, it was simply impossible to find.

And in this society, there were neither murders, nor rapes, nor thefts.

My favorite example with the pigs. Pigs there weren’t even locked up, let alone just wandered freely around the village. I asked a local why they didn’t lock them up. And the answer was a masterpiece: “And where would they go? They’re afraid to go into the taiga. They’ll be eaten there.” I didn’t specify that they’d also be eaten here. But the very question was clearly incomprehensible to him. I explained that someone could steal them… And again, they looked at me as if I were mentally ill. Pigs are all marked. And if all my pigs are intact, but there’s a smell of shashlik from a yard—then they’ll burn down my house and me inside it if I don’t manage to jump out. And if I do, it doesn’t mean my situation improves. Because no one will allow “ratting” (stealing from one’s own)!

So why on earth do we need laws and cops in such a scenario? Perhaps it was exactly there, at age 16, that I became an anarchist. Convinced. Because where there’s a cop on every corner—pigs were locked up with 3 locks and dogs were kept on wires. And where there are none at all, and the word “law” has a meaning not quite familiar to us, as well as the expression “settle it by the law”—there, locks on doors are unnecessary.

So, nothing bad will definitely happen to us with the disappearance of the state. All these wild delusions about the rampage of animal abusers, maniacs, pedophiles, murderers, and thugs—just wild delusions. To the one who asked the question, I recommend watching less state TV and reading less zombie-apocalypse literature.