As a reminder, the essence of the project consists of organizing a physical exodus of libertarians from various European countries to small Montenegro in order to create a libertarian enclave there (the minimum program) and to exert indirect influence on local politics in a libertarian vein through local activists (the maximum program).
It is highly desirable for the enclave to have its own land, since Montenegro is not some place like Ukraine and willingly sells land to foreigners. An inexpensive plot was scouted, and fundraising for the joint purchase of this asset has now begun. A detailed text about this is posted on the project website, so I won’t paraphrase it. I will only say that I also intend to invest a little in the purchase. The scheme for acquiring ownership rights to a share in this asset is quite complicated; the organizers decided to tokenize the shares. Thus, cryptocurrency enthusiasts can try the proposed complex scheme for purchasing Montelibero fund tokens, but I will take a simpler path and just bring euro cash with me into the country, with which I will buy myself a little piece of Montenegro, to have a place to park my backside, so to speak).
Overall, the project develops in waves as people from different thematic circles join in. There was a time when merging into the local yachting scene was actively discussed, thanks, obviously, to the appearance of yachtsmen in the project. Then the crypto people appeared, and the tokenization movement began. Once land ownership is secured, discussions on options for its development will begin. In short, I like the business atmosphere around Montelibero so far. And in the context of the sharp tightening of the regime in Russia, preparing a site for a relatively mass exodus looks damn relevant).
I am continuing to translate Eric Mack’s “Libertarianism.” Last time, having finished Part 2 on philosophical premises, I am now tackling Part 3 on the foundations of libertarianism, and today I present for your attention a short introduction to the third part and a rather long chapter on how Nozick explained self-ownership and the resulting moral constraints. Nozick’s approach is compared with Rawls’ more famous concept—about the veil of ignorance and all that—after which Eric Mack shows in which places Nozick seems more convincing to him.
I tried to translate in a way that makes it as clear as possible what is being discussed, but I cannot guarantee that I haven’t missed some set expressions from the unfamiliar jargon of moral philosophers, so I would be glad if some conditional Artem Seversky could briefly scan the translation and suggest corrections where he deems necessary.
The translation of this chapter was stimulated by a donation of one thousand rubles—which is quite a lot for a single donation, but very modest considering the volume of work. So I would be glad if you chip in more.
The next chapter will also be quite large, and it will be about what the author learned from Friedrich Hayek regarding the foundations of libertarianism.
I also slightly corrected the layout of the previously posted chapters, translated the notes for them, and improved the navigation between chapters. I’m doing great)))
I read the subject and thought about it for a long time. Why did I have to think for so long? Let’s go in order.
“Snow Crash” is a classic work in the cyberpunk genre, meaning high tech low life. A hereditary (though I’m not sure if mandatory) trait of cyberpunk is the weakness of the state compared to corporations. Specifically in Stephenson’s work, this is expressed in the widespread proliferation of contractual corporate territorial jurisdictions—US territory is divided into numerous entities managed according to one model or another, distributed on a franchise basis. The Federals also persist as a very strange, gradually fading corporation that has already lost control over the army, navy, secret services, the legislative process, and the judiciary—earning only through unrestrained monetary emission, the privatization of the remains of federal property, and the implicit leasing of the extremely inefficient labor of the remaining budget workers, whose loyalty to the existing order is, for me personally, the most fantastical part. Apparently, the absurdity of this motivation is a conscious plot device. After all, even in Russia, there are quite loyal librarians, museum workers, kindergarten teachers, and other low-paid people working for the state. The difference is that in Stephenson’s world, the Federals provide people with no services and are completely stewing in their own juices.
Thanks to what does high tech exist in the world of “Snow Crash”? This is generally clear. No taxes. No prohibitions. No regulations. First to think of something new—get it implemented. Implemented—get the profit. Therefore, we see serious progress in IT, weapons technology, transport, genetic engineering, and cybernetics. And where do we not see it? We don’t see progress in food production (and this despite successes in genetic engineering). In other words, creating a radioisotope guard dog is no problem, but a radioisotope cell culture that could synthesize tasty and healthy organics from water and stone crumbs using that energy is, for some reason, a problem.
All that’s left is to understand where the low life comes from in this world. This became the subject of my long reflections, as a result of which I formulated a hypothesis about exactly what fantastic assumption generates such a world. The assumption concerns human motivation and states: the values of freedom and, especially, self-expression are immeasurably higher than the values of security.
This explains everything. A new drug appeared with unknown side effects? Holy shit, give me two! Need to ensure pizza delivery anywhere within half an hour? Creating a dense network of kitchens is for weaklings; we’ll just hire the best racers and deliver pizza in racing cars, otherwise it’s not sporty. They pay peanuts, fuck with your head, and force you to do things whose meaning you don’t understand? This is a fucking great role-playing game, I’m the ideal federal employee, a priest of the state cult, of course I agree to this job! Need to deliver a small package from point A to point B in the shortest possible time? Who said “drones”? Throw him out the window. Our couriers will ride skateboards on the highways, clinging to trucks. A company appeared that hires skateboarders to deliver small items? Great, let’s call couriers for every little thing, they’re so kawaii! Fuck the internet, I want to send a handwritten postcard.
And since considerations of self-preservation are practically not a deterrent for people, they will constantly violate others’ boundaries to achieve their own goals. They will invest an extraordinary amount in means of immediate self-expression. Even more in the means of achieving goals of self-expression, regardless of the opinion of others. Disproportionately much in the means of maintaining an exotic order you’ve established in your jurisdiction. And spending money just to eat—my god, how boring! I’d rather wait for rush hour and order a pizza. Not because I’m craving pizza. But because I want it to fail to arrive within half an hour, and have the mafia boss personally apologize to me for the delivery delay. Now that’s a thrill! Now that’s a news event!
In short, the low standard of living in cyberpunk by our standards is a conscious choice of its inhabitants. Roughly the same as the conscious choice of tourists to live in tents or a hermit in a secluded skete. There are no objective contraindications to people living a calm, boring, wealthy, and safe life within this same world. They just don’t want it; that’s just how cyberpunks are. By the way, I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere in Florida in the world of “Snow Crash,” there are plenty of franchises providing elderly people with exactly such a calm and measured life—this doesn’t contradict the canon at all.
What if your house was surrounded by a fence while you were at Minarchit buying a new cat-wife? In this case, there is no attempted murder, and the person had the right to build a fence, just as you had the right to build your house before that. What should be done in such a case? Do you have the right to break the fence to get through? Is this a violation of the NAP? And what if such a concrete fence is poured every day?
Hate
How to maintain the freedom to leave communities under ancap?
Anonymous question
To begin with, I suggest rereading the chapter from the Mechanics of Freedom about bargaining under conditions of anarchy. Briefly, it talks about Schelling points—certain special positions of a system that, for one reason or another, appear unique to those dealing with it, and therefore are more likely to come to the minds of several potential counterparties simultaneously in the absence of prior agreements. Schelling points, in particular, help establish natural boundaries, the maintenance of which saves the parties more effort.
A given spontaneously formed status quo is obviously a Schelling point, and its violation, of course, will meet some resistance. If in a community men usually shake hands and women hug each other and men, then a woman who offers a hand will be perceived with caution, and she will likely be attempted to be hugged. If it is customary in a community to walk freely on neighbors’ lands, marking boundaries as unobtrusively as possible, not locking doors, popping in for visits, leaving mail under the doorstep, and so on—then an attempt to erect a solid fence will already be perceived with strained bewilderment. And a fence that isolates someone else’s plot from the outside world is unambiguous rudeness; a whole delegation will come to such an unfriendly neighbor and try to explain that things aren’t done that way here. On the other hand, if it is customary to fence oneself off, let vicious dogs into the yard, and fire into the air at any stirring near the border, then a new fence preventing you from getting into your own home will have to be viewed simply as an inevitable fuck-up: you must have been such a loser not to notice that your neighbor managed to completely surround you with his territory. Now you’ll have to drop some toxic plague onto him via drones, and only after that can you begin peaceful negotiations with the neighbor.
The same applies to leaving a community. If it is a common occurrence, with people constantly entering and leaving, then such an open order of access is perceived as natural, and this Schelling point will be upheld. But if there have been no such precedents since the dawn of time, then the attempt to leave will be perceived as something extraordinary; you will have to explain yourself, prove your right, and perhaps somehow compensate those remaining for your departure. This, by the way, is not such an unlikely situation. Imagine, for example, an artel that has mapped out a front of work to a certain deadline—and then you suddenly decide to leave the community. They might simply not let you out until the work is finished, or shake you down for a serious penalty because those remaining will now have to slave away, which they had not planned.
An attempt to push one’s position against the status quo, whatever it may be, will inevitably meet resistance, and this resistance may turn out to be disproportionately serious, even if the required concession seems trivial. The reason is clear: if one simply gives in, the new status quo will be that you give in under pressure. Such things are clearly seen when representatives of different cultures clash, where for one, conceding on small things is good manners and a guarantee that you will also be met with reciprocity in the future—while for the other, a concession means that one should keep pressing until they break—after all, the opponent has already buckled, they must be finished off.
Now let’s talk about recipes. What to do so that your plot isn’t seized, so that you are allowed to leave a community, and so on. Build the reputation you need. By the way, we had a very good video about this, rewatch it.
If you have the reputation of a person who, upon seeing a fence, will start breaking it without looking, then that is a poor reputation. You break the fence, they shoot you, and then they explain to interested parties that this madman started breaking into my territory, didn’t listen to warnings, and I had to shoot in self-defense. Pity it was immediately fatal, it turned out rather unfortunate. It is far more useful to have the reputation of a person for whom a bunch of people will stand up. It is also good to have the reputation of a person who can bring a lot of benefit and with whom it is better to be friends. In short, working on your reputation can work wonders.
And finally, I want to recommend a very lovely cartoon Klaus. It is precisely about how to change the status quo in a situation where fencing in someone else’s house to keep the owner from leaving is just an innocent prank.
In response to the start of the procedure to declare them an extremist organization, Navalny’s team is calling for a final and decisive “Chinese warning” to the regime. Namely, let’s go to a rally in a huge crowd, like the Belarusians, and then defeat them in elections, like the Belarusians. “If they shot at us with rifles,” the FBK leadership states, “and we bravely pushed forward, then now, when they are unpacking the machine gun, we need to close our ranks even tighter; they can’t shoot everyone.” The main thing is not to become like them and not to unpack the guns ourselves.
Indeed, the judicial system in the RF has a certain terminal velocity for turning free people into colony inhabitants, and in the event that any political activity not coordinated with the regime is officially declared a criminal offense, this very system will have to work for quite some time at maximum capacity — which, however, is easily optimized (google troikas).
Now let’s look at a simple chart. This is the dynamics of the change in the number of prisoners over three Putin terms and one Medvedev term. As you can see, at least 360,000 vacant spots have opened up in Russian prisons and colonies during this time. 440,000 people have already signed up for Navalny’s rally, and an unauthorized mass action is planned for when 500,000 sign up. What is there to say? Indeed, it will be difficult to imprison everyone. Perhaps you will be among those 140,000 lucky ones who won’t fit in the prisons and will therefore receive a suspended sentence. Navalny also started with a suspended sentence.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer any more reasonable alternative than to get out of the country right now. Just imagine that you live, for example, in the USSR, and it is, for example, 1968. And by some incredibly lucky chance, you have the opportunity to physically be outside the country. You can leave, you can stay, but the regime will only collapse in 1991. That is roughly the picture we have today.
The post was preceded by a donation of 0.00004388btc
It turns out that the libertarian party has had a YouTube channel since 2008, and a quite crowded one at that. Later, during one of the splits, the channel left the party, renamed itself RLN (russian libertarian network), and existed in that form for many years. Now, the RLN Telegram channel has gone to the Montelibero project, and the YouTube channel has been renamed Panarchy World.
In my opinion, Libertarian Band also did a pretty good job in its time, but I am biased.
Nevertheless, for me, collaboration with Libertarian Band is already in the past, but collaboration with Panarchy World will quite likely be established soon. So you can subscribe in advance, mention in the comments that you came from Ancap-chan, and this will be a signal to the channel owners that it makes sense to invite me. Of course, not exclusively, but simply as one of the content creators.
When a couple of years ago I congratulated readers on Cosmonautics Day, I mentioned that while the state might have fucked things up in space, the market has arrived there for real and for the long haul, and it won’t be possible to kick it out anymore. Since then, many interesting things have happened in space, but the most promising, of course, is Elon Musk’s Starship.
And as for everyone’s preferences, ancaps care about the displacement of the state. I’ll allow myself a simple extrapolation. Musk perfects Starship and organizes more or less regular communication with Mars. An orbital station, a base on the surface, supplies for that very base; some of the population works on a rotational basis, some settle for the long term. Nothing stops Musk from declaring that his private colony has its own jurisdiction, a certain legal code, contractual citizenship, an embassy on Earth in the city of Starbase, and other state attributes.
What grounds, precisely, would other states have to prevent this? Would the US claim the surface of Mars based on the fact that it is being colonized by an American company? It’s unlikely this would pass through the UN. Would the US begin criminal prosecution of Musk for secession? That’s bad PR; moreover, the PRC is nipping at their heels, and while you’re putting spokes in the wheels of an American entrepreneur, the red planet will be annexed by the red Chinese.
But if an independent sovereign contractual state forms on Mars, the majority of its citizens will be Earthlings who have never left Earth. Formally, they would, for example, be waiting in line for relocation, hold a residence permit and a correspondingly broad list of civil rights associated with that permit. They would even pay taxes, for instance, in the form of fixed regular contributions as a subscription fee for the maintenance of their interests by a diplomatic mission before Earthly states. In short, all the attributes of a state will be present, but its sole function for citizens will be the provision of legal norms; in all other respects—complete freedom of entrepreneurship. This means that the space offshore will rapidly grow its citizenship, while states will face the prospect of being left high and dry.
Why do I think that something like this could quite possibly happen? Why not, that’s why. Musk has repeatedly demonstrated that “it’s not done that way” is not an argument for him. The idea of getting rid of state dictate is in the air, as is the idea of space expansion. I don’t see why the noble Don shouldn’t combine two promising ideas.
The usual answer is that the difference lies in the right to freely leave. But the rules of life in a community can differ so much from the requirements of the outside world that leaving becomes practically impossible. Where would someone who leaves an Amish community, or a communist one, go? They are simply not adapted to life.
Where is the guarantee that some community won’t prepare for an aggressive war against others? Where is the guarantee that anyone wishing to leave the community will be allowed to? Where is the guarantee that someone who has left will be accepted elsewhere?
Anonymous question
States are territorial communities recognized by the leadership of other similar territorial communities as sovereigns over their territory. There can also be territorial communities that are not recognized as sovereigns. For example, condominiums. They may have their own customs, but the state remains the sovereign over that territory. There can be extraterritorial communities. An example is the church. The only church that also has its own state is the Catholic Church. It can be viewed both as an extraterritorial jurisdiction with sovereignty over a small territory and as a state with a very powerful diaspora abroad.
The freedom to leave does not separate communities from the state in any way; it has nothing to do with it here. There can be states with the freedom to renounce citizenship. There can be any other territorial and extraterritorial communities with the freedom to leave. And, similarly, all the same can exist without the freedom to leave. The freedom to leave is the characteristic by which we can judge whether a community is compatible with a libertarian order.
Your concerns regarding guarantees of how decent the order will be in various communities, and how dangerous these orders will be for both the members of the community and those around them, are quite justified, since current sovereign territorial communities aka states cannot provide any such guarantees and regularly demonstrate that such concerns are not groundless.
Today, a state can be coerced into observing propriety in three ways: by the threat of attack from other states, the threat of severing interstate economic ties, and the threat of internal regime instability. In a world without states, similarly, a community that is dangerous to others would have those same incentives to behave decently. So why abolish states at all?
In principle, there is no need. If the vast majority makes constant active efforts to ensure that territorial sovereigns do not violate individual rights, it will be a quite decent world. But in such a world, states would not have the opportunity to fight those who wish to associate in a different manner, for example, within the framework of a contract. Thus, a world of minimal states will inevitably be diluted by extraterritorial associations of people who maintain rules within themselves that are not tied to a territory.
As for the fear that people fleeing a highly exotic community will find themselves completely maladapted to life in a global world, it seems exaggerated to me. There are a huge number of migrants in the world who adapt to life in new conditions, and the easier it is, the more they like these new conditions. So this particular factor is not something to fear. Migrants are dangerous if they become a tool of politics. Purely economic relations benefit all their participants.
If the Amish are such maladapted folks, why are they so wealthy?
Less than a year has passed since I returned to translation and to this book. Another chapter is modestly titled Just a Personal Confession and is a phantasmagoria of poetic metaphors, from which we learn a lot about cathedrals and shoulders, about fish and the desert, about kings and about cabbage…
Something similar — a description of the author’s personal feeling of the immense value of the knowledge gained — is found in many libertarian authors; I am not immune to this myself. And at the end of the chapter, it describes quite accurately why I am moving to Montenegro and what I want to build there.
This chapter was translated with the financial support of Bitarch in the amount of 0.00110501btc.
After a long break, during which I was busy finalizing the edition of Mechanics of Freedom, I am returning to two other projects translating libertarian literature that have been pending. Since there are currently no donations coming in for the translation of Stephan Mol liqueur, but two donations of 500 rubles each arrived for Eric Mack, I am posting a chapter from Mack. Don’t forget to encourage the translation process.
With a story about the views of Herbert Spencer, Eric Mack concludes the first part of his book dedicated to the precursors of libertarianism; moving forward, he is expected to approach the main theme of his work.
The focus is on an early and not very well-known work by Spencer, which was moreover partially revised by him in a later edition toward greater moderation and acceptance of the status quo. In it, he introduces as the primary principle of justice the Law of Equal Liberty, which is still actively used by libertarians — the idea that everyone is free to do as they wish, provided they do not violate the similar liberty of other people.
What personally seemed worthy of attention was Spencer’s direct indication that the right of property is determined by the society’s consent to satisfy the corresponding claim. This is almost identical to the phrasing I use when defining any right as a claim that is tolerated.
Also, importantly, Spencer approaches the adoption of the principle of methodological subjectivism when he notes that to move within the principle of the greatest happiness, there is no need to compare whose concept of happiness is superior; it is sufficient that everyone has the opportunity to actively pursue their own.
