Автор: Анкап-тян

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.

How am I supposed to live with the knowledge that my father, who served in the KGB and early FSB, will be killed under ancap?

Or at least they will force him to pay giant compensations for numerous NAP violations on his part in connection with his service, and those debts that he doesn’t manage to pay off will be passed to me as inheritance, even though I was born after his retirement and am not to blame for what he did. Bitarch, do you also believe that children should answer for the debts and crimes of their parents?

Semyon Persunov (the question is accompanied by a donation of 0.00000546 BTC)

I think that in the early nineties, he faced a much greater danger of being killed, because it only sounds beautiful—revenge, they say, is a dish best served cold. In fact, old events are soon replaced by more current ones, and those who fervently desired to take revenge on KGB employees, but did not bother to do so immediately after the organization was disbanded, now dream of taking revenge on someone else, but they are also unlikely to ever bother to do so.

Ancap means the decentralization of law. A violation of the NAP will not punish itself. Until a specific subject appears who decides to prosecute your father for that specific damage he caused them, there will be no prosecution.

But.

There is such a thing as a herd reflex. It is enough for someone very persistent, for example, Navalny, to actually achieve a trial against a number of FSB employees and recover damages from them through the court—and then others will want to as well. And if the same Navalny manages to provide a convenient service for this, the matter could proceed much more actively. Instead of Navalny, I would put Svetov, but I have much less faith in the latter: he is exceptionally resentful, but he hasn’t been noticed for litigiousness yet, limiting himself to publicism.

However, even in the case where people, with the help of former political prisoner lawyers, begin to mass-file lawsuits against former security agency employees, your father will most likely still end up somewhere far at the end of the list. I suspect that if he had ill-wishers whom he truly had reason to fear, he killed them back when he still wore the shoulder straps.

As for their descendants, the fact that a ghoul who killed their parents lives somewhere will be more of a matter of curiosity for them. Find him, come, look him in the eyes. Humph and leave. I don’t guarantee such an outcome, but it is also completely unrealistic to expect that under ancap everyone will suddenly become real jigits and practice blood feuds.

How do you feel living with the awareness that your father will most likely come out of this scrape unscathed, even if he was up to his elbows in blood in the late Soviet era? Well, I hope this will bother you, but not to the point of serious neuroses. And if he is caught in some way, libertarianism denies the right to recover for actions to which you were not party, so the maximum you face is the seizure of property that your father tries to hurriedly transfer to you once he smells smoke. In this case, the fact of your cooperation with him in the act of hiding assets that may be subject to seizure will be too obvious to ignore.

Following Svetov, I would also advise the father to seek active repentance, but this step, while morally justified, carries more utilitarian risks than potential benefits, so let him weigh and decide for himself.

As for Bitarch, I hope he will share his opinion on this matter in the comments.

The first precedent that comes to mind: https://karagodin.org

How does left-libertarianism differ from anarcho-communism in essence? And in general, why is it needed if there are ancap and ancom respectively?

Semyon Persunov (question accompanied by a donation of 0.00000546 BTC)

Ancom is an ideology based on the premise that individualism spoils people. A person owes too much to society and therefore must take it into account. It may be necessary to seize public resources for one’s own benefit because without this, the existence of the individual is impossible; however, the prosperity of society is primary, and then it shares with people from the common pot. Therefore, for ancoms, any separation of property from society to a specific individual must be justified.

Usually, they distinguish a category such as personal property and define it as things used for consumption rather than production. Personal property is halal, private property is haram. Clearly, this definition relies more on tradition and suffers from many flaws. I would rather suggest a slightly different criterion. It is appropriate to treat items as personal property if their use by an individual seriously reduces the attractiveness of their use for other individuals. For example, a handkerchief, a toothbrush, or socks are more appropriately personal property after the very first act of use, whereas while they lie untouched in a warehouse, they are, of course, public. A cup, for instance, might be personal property in some places and public in others; this is already a matter of local tradition. I also find it more comfortable to use a personal computer rather than configuring a public one every time as I prefer. Although, to a certain extent, the issue is solved by personal accounts on a public computer.

An anarcho-communist society can afford more personal property the wealthier it is as a whole.

Left-libertarianism is an ideology that does not encroach upon individualism as seriously. The interests of the individual are primary. But a person still owes too much to society and must take it into account. Nevertheless, due to the primacy of individual interests, for left-libertarians, any separation of property from the individual to society must be justified.

Usually, they distinguish a category such as public goods and define them as positive effects of human activity for which it is extremely difficult to ensure exclusive access. Due to this characteristic, public goods are difficult to monetize; therefore, they are presumably underproduced relative to easily monetizable market private goods. Thus, for left-libertarians, the production of public goods is a fairly strong justification for forcibly separating private property in favor of society.

Unfortunately, as soon as the production of a public good begins to be provided forcibly, it triggers a positive feedback loop, since the producer of the public good is now interested in producing as much of it as possible and demanding as large a budget as possible for it. And suddenly, the impoverished Soviet Union finds itself ahead of the entire planet in the field of ballet.

I do not know how left-libertarianism solves the problem of “when to stop forced redistribution in favor of society.” In my view, the absence of a clear boundary criterion is precisely what makes this ideology stillborn.

I will note that an ancap has such a boundary condition. When does an ancap decide that he has shared enough with society and no longer intends to? When he wants to. He treated passers-by to rakia, received enough respect, and then went home, happy, to finish the leftovers.

A book about ancap: a second attempt to start the second part

How I love diagrams! Making my first attempt at describing society under ancap, I tried to outline two approaches to how it is done, and then fell into a long stupor facing the question “and so what?”

The thing is, those were two bad approaches; ancap should not be described either by adding capitalism to real anarchy, or by adding anarchy to real capitalism. Ancap must be described based on theory.

So I tossed out the two previously published chapters and composed another one instead, where I briefly described the ideal ancap, how it looks based on theoretical ideas of how it should look. And next, I face a fascinating task: to detail what mechanisms push imperfect people, living in an imperfect world and forming an imperfect society, toward making society more or less correspond to the described ideal after all.

I hope things will move along more briskly now.

Since that’s the case, the picture can be more brisk too

New video from Libertarian Band – about education

The Libertarian Band team has released another video — about private education.

The video is well-made, even a bit pedantic: featuring a historical overview, a demonstration of the state’s lack of involvement in the emergence of most educational practices, and a list of key ideas for removing the state from this sphere.

I’ll throw in a few more links regarding ideas on how to organize this very education. David Friedman on the reform of schools, universities, and on unschooling.

And tomorrow, we move from theoretical reflections on private education to practice. The readings of Adam Smith are a bit late this year, and they didn’t surprise us with anything on Guy Fawkes Day, but they will take place tomorrow after all (without Shulmann, as you might imagine!). I’m really counting on a proper broadcast on YouTube; in that case, I will likely provide prompt commentary on what’s happening on my Twitter, and then post my summary impressions to my other channels.

QR codes

I have now distanced myself quite a bit from the current Russian agenda, which is why I hardly ever speak on this topic. However, the Global civil war between supporters of the unlimited expansion of the state and supporters of its limitation affects even little Montenegro, so it is worth dedicating at least one post to this.

Statists use a specific vulnerability of economic theory to political pressure—externalities—to attack personal freedom. Anyone can become a carrier of a virus and infect others, meaning that by their very presence, they potentially represent a significant negative externality for those around them. And while attempts to restrict human freedom under the pretext that people breathe and emit terrible carbon dioxide, which will soon boil the Earth, meet with serious misunderstanding, it turned out to be noticeably easier to frighten people with a deadly and immediate danger, rather than one decades away.

In Montenegro, society is holding its defense quite steadfastly. It is helped by serious disagreements between the president and the prime minister, which prevent truly unpopular decisions from being made. But it is hindered by pressure from the European Union, on which loans and the flow of tourists bringing money into the country depend. Therefore, the state advances very cautiously and immediately takes a step back upon encountering serious resistance. This provides the EU with the necessary image: that we tried, but these obscurantists started blocking roads, and we had to find a compromise. For example, in the autumn there was an attempt to gradually make entry to large supermarkets available only by certificate, but after a couple of weeks, all restrictions were cancelled. Closer to winter, they promised to require certificates for entry to Christmas markets, but a couple of weeks later, they conversely announced relaxations: practically all restrictions are lifted during the Christmas holidays, celebrate to your heart’s content. Naturally, society has to fight for every relaxation through street actions.

In Russia, everything is much worse. Society was almost completely paved over last winter; no one is surprised by imprisonments for single-person pickets, social media posts, and other arbitrariness, about which most of my readers have a much more direct understanding, so I will not dwell on it. However, it seems that the attempt, at the end of the second year of the war for public health, to introduce a permit system for movement has nonetheless encountered fairly widespread grassroots resistance.

The Libertarian Party of Russia (the one of the two that the state seemingly hasn’t completely crushed) has announced the launch of a public campaign against QR-codification. I have read the list of proposals, and they look reasonably sound. As is usual in the RF, the level of support for an initiative is determined primarily by the number of signatures on change.org, so the first thing to do is go there and sign, and then figure out how else the campaign can be helped.

And, of course, we welcome everyone who cannot bear this entire frontline atmosphere to cozy, damp, and rainy Montenegro. At least the borders are still open.

Critique of the Libertarian Movement from the Right

Instead of a regular question, I received a rather detailed discourse, apparently with a suggestion to comment on it in some way.

If you are truly a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist, then you must abandon the progressive “Overton window,” after which anarcho-capitalism becomes feudalism, and you become a reactionary. If we truly had anarcho-capitalism, we would have the death penalty for most crimes typical of the lower class, as well as serfdom or slavery for vagrants and the able-bodied poor, the death penalty for everything, the abolition of voting, at least for the poor and the stupid, serfdom or some similar way to disable people who are not inclined to work.

Most “libertarians,” since libertarianism is close to being illegal, have abandoned libertarianism. Now it is a completely dead doctrine. The great flaw of progressive “libertarianism” is egalitarianism. People are not equal, groups are not equal, reproductive roles are not equal.

Higher people should rule lower people; otherwise, lower people will create problems for each other and for their betters. The best people need to be freer. Lower people cannot handle freedom; they need supervision, discipline, and control. Lower people should be significantly less free. In order for people to have a reason for savings and investments, those who save and invest must possess greater political power compared to those who do not. Children need fathers. For children to have fathers, fathers must have power over their families. For the economy to function, property must be secure. For property to be secure, those who have it must have political power over those who do not.

The Enemy

I would say that some of the theses in this pamphlet coincide with the theses of Moscow republicanism according to Belkovich: people are not equal, the best people should have political power, and so on. But here the position is presented even more exaggeratedly.

I cannot say that the described society is unviable. What is described here is a very ordinary urban aristocratic republic, which existed in various forms from antiquity to the modern era. Such a society is sufficiently stable and historically died, if not from external conquest, then from the degeneration of the aristocracy. What can be done; political power is a poisoned fruit—you may pluck it to preserve your property, but you quickly discover that power is perfectly suited for preventing your competitors from getting rich, and even better, for plundering those under your control. The aristocratic little world closes in on itself, and in the best case, after a few generations, it finds itself tedious to everyone and needed by no one.

Is it possible in the modern world to maintain a society culturally similar to the one described, but without political power? This seems doubtful to me. At the very least, families relying on the dominance of the father of the house are struggling to survive in a world where there are many well-paid labor vacancies for women. On the other hand, if no one has political power (that is, the right to seize someone else’s property under the pretext of implementing socially important projects), then property ends up being relatively secure, and that is exactly what you need.

And what about the numerous rabble—lazy, unable to handle responsibility, living for the day? Let them hang out. At the current level of labor productivity, they will be quite able to afford working to a minimum, without straining themselves much, and it will be enough for them to live. Why worry about these downshifters? They won’t be able to cheat anyone or overthrow anyone. Well, they’ll quietly die from an overdose at fifty—why should you care? For a person without savings, it won’t be such a bad way out.

In short, in order to recreate the society you dream of for yourselves, you no longer need to harshly pressure the mindless mass, and they won’t pressure you either. You can breathe a sigh of relief.

So why on earth do you need these guys as serfs?

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the chapter on Loren Lomasky.

I am continuing to translate the bonus section of Eric Mack’s book Libertarianism. It contains a selection of views from relatively obscure contemporary theorists who are developing libertarian ideology in directions they find most convenient. The second bonus chapter refers to Loren Lomski’s essay People, Rights, and the Moral Community, and primarily describes exactly which rights and for exactly what reason people would find it appropriate to waive in the interests of others.

In his reasoning, Lomski introduces the curious concept of personal projects—essentially, certain strategic goals that largely define each person’s personality and that somehow connect people with one another. Everyone knows that another person also has a personal project, and this means that they can be given a small amount of respect for it, expressed at minimum as non-interference, and at best, as unburdening assistance.

I would say that these arguments are far more appealing than those of Steiner in the previous chapter, and I am glad that something useful can actually be gleaned from the book being translated, although, of course, the concentration of useful ideas is incomparable to that of Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom, it seems to me.

.

The 2008 Crisis: Now a Direct Answer to Yesterday’s Question

Yesterday, responding to a question about the libertarian interpretation of the 2008 crisis, I used the question more as an opportunity to talk about my own topic. This left some commenters bewildered, especially given that the corresponding disclaimer did not fit within the limits of the Telegram post and is only found in the full version of the post on the website.

Fortunately, in the Facebook comments, Valery Kizilov provided a link to his own article from 2008, written in the immediate aftermath of that crisis, where he explains the Austrian theory of the business cycle very clearly and concisely. He also recommends a book for a more extensive study of the topic, where everything is explained in much more detail: Jeffrey Friedman, Vladimir Kraus. Man-Made Financial Crisis: Systemic Risk and the Failure of Regulation. M., IRISEN, 2012.