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.
I used the search and found a review of Rainbow. I’ve never seen it from such an angle! It turned out to be an unexpectedly pleasant, intellectually stimulating stereoscopic effect
Semarg (Question accompanied by a donation of 0.1 dash)
At this rate, sooner or later I will become acquainted with practically the entire legacy of the Strugatsky brothers. To start with, I read “Roadside Picnic,” and now I will share my thoughts on it, and in time I will get to the other two commissioned novellas.
What invariably pleases me about the Strugatskys is that their world is quite psychologically authentic, and since economics largely continues psychology, it turns out to be economically consistent as well. For example, it is quite accurately noted that no matter how much you lower the iron curtain, you cannot completely isolate any Zone; it will inevitably become part of world trade, bringing prosperity to both itself and the outside world, while the paranoiacs from the secret services will have to accept it.
But, of course, the Zone is not only a metaphor for a frightening and incomprehensible foreign land, but simultaneously a metaphor, let’s say, for the sphere of scientific knowledge. In “Hard to Be a God,” the Strugatskys showed science as a box. A scientist puts his hand in and pulls out some random thing. He thinks he will use it this way, but it turns out that others start using it that way. It is similar in “Picnic.” A stalker drags some mysterious loot out of the zone, which is then adapted for use in unpredictable ways. The fact that the result will be unpredictable is no reason not to haul it, because the risk pays off.
And since we’ve started talking about science, I cannot fail to note that the only representative of the USSR in the book is engaged, conventionally speaking, in studying the influence of the philological characteristics of the word “concrete” on the drilling properties of a gaze. All the conversion of the Zone’s wonders into technological wonders is left to greedy capitalists. The stalkers act as sorts of startups that skim the cream off new markets, but gradually give way to fat corporations that rely not on courage and art, but on capital investments and methodicalness. As usual, the vast majority of startups go bust.
In conclusion, I will note that in the world of “Roadside Picnic,” humanity was terribly lucky. The most important thing about the aliens’ visit to Earth was the very fact of the visit. After this, humanity simply had no choice but to stop closing its eyes and pretending that it was alone in the universe. Our humanity also most likely encountered an alien probe in 2017, but preferred to pretend that nothing special happened, because acknowledging the very fact of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization is psychologically unbearable. I am talking about the visit to the Solar System by an object named ‘Oumuamua and its performance of non-gravitational maneuvers in the system. So we live as if nothing happened, as if there had been no Visit.
In the Telegram comments, several points were quite rightly noted.
First, classical individual insurance is always based on statistics and probabilities, so it will primarily be applied where transactions are standardized and risks are sufficiently random. It is quite difficult to imagine, for example, insuring a bank against a borrower’s intentional non-payment of a loan while prohibiting the insurance company from forcibly recovering that very loan. If such an insurance service were provided, there would be a fairly strong temptation for bank employees to organize a scheme of issuing non-repayable loans to shell companies for kickbacks, with the bank subsequently receiving insurance when the loan is not returned.
Second, the use of escrow accounts is usually imposed on transaction participants by the platform owner who sets the trading rules. If transactions occur without an intermediary, the use of an escrow scheme is unlikely, especially if the freezing of funds is expected to be long, as in the case of shared construction agreements.
Third, I was reminded of my year-old post about, suddenly, juvenile justice, where I noted certain difficulties with liability insurance.
In this regard, I want to mention another convenient way to reduce the risks of contract non-performance that is not related to violent coercion. These are the good old insurance groups, meaning archaic collective responsibility. In the old days, a person’s entire kinship, tribe, clan, or community—in short, a group of relatives and possibly neighbors—was responsible for them. Therefore, one didn’t have to worry much about personal reputation; instead, a person was judged by who they belonged to.
Of course, in a stateless society, there is no need to necessarily restore communal living, although the factor of belonging to an insurance group would be a compelling reason to cluster in such a way. Then again, there is certainly no need now to organize specifically by kinship, as friends and like-minded people play the role of the kin today. But I want to discuss not interest-based circles, but how transaction risks can be further reduced.
Entrepreneurs wishing to earn the trust of potential counterparties can form associations. Admission to such an association can be based on various criteria. Some may be accepted for an already established good name. Others—for promises to conduct business with impeccable honesty and a large deposit. Others—under the guarantee of respected members of the association. For external counterparties, the association acts as a group guarantor for the transactions of its members.
Every member of the association is, on one hand, interested in the growth of its membership, because this means that in the event of collective responsibility, the losses of each member are reduced. On the other hand, everyone is interested in ensuring that only honest and reliable entrepreneurs enter the association—those who insure others rather than parasitize the collective. The association will cover the costs of a breached contract not only for classic insurance events, but also in cases of force majeure, and even if a member of the association turns out to be a fraudster. But, of course, in the latter case, it would mean a “wolf’s ticket” (blacklisting) for such an entrepreneur.
Finally, I will note that the proven, well-known dishonesty of an entrepreneur by no means means that he will die in a ditch because no one will sell him anything and no one will hire him for anything. It simply means he will not be taken at his word, and all transactions for him will operate on a “money upfront” principle.
Any attempts to depict a stateless society as something totally cannibalistic imply either an incredible scarcity of resources for which people must tear each other’s throats out, or a post-totalitarian syndrome of complete mutual distrust. Naturally, the gradual dying out of non-violent practices in general and the state in particular cannot be accompanied by such catastrophic symptoms.
Interview for admission to the association of agricultural producers
Libertarian Band has released the third video from the “Agorist Cookbook” series, this time dedicated to how to avoid the army. The video is long, over 15 minutes, but includes timecodes. You can skip directly to the “Practical Tips” section at 5:23, because before that there is a long historical introduction about what conscription was like during the times of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea, and this introduction has no connection to the subsequent detailed and useful practical instructions.
To the tips suggested in the video, I will add my own. Instead of trying to abuse the system through courts and begging for the right to alternative civilian service, you can simply leave the country in advance. Montenegro, where I am moving, is not the only option; there are many other places where a Russian person lives more freely and prosperously than under the jurisdiction of Moscow.
This is precisely the most agorist way to avoid the army draft. This is the method described by Ayn Rand in her most famous work. Our ancestors, by dismantling the Soviet Union, achieved the most important freedom for us: the freedom to leave. If they had had this freedom, how many Russians would not have perished in the 20th century at the hands of the Soviet state! So let us not undervalue this crucial achievement. We are now left with no other way to vote for a better future for ourselves than by voting with our feet.
First, I want to say thank you to Andrey Shevtsov, who quickly put together a PDF based on the text published on the website. Now those who wish can play at samizdat and print themselves a hard copy.
Secondly, besides attaching audio to each of the chapters individually, I have also gathered them into playlists for the convenience of listening in sequence, without the need to flip through pages.
Here is the English version.
[cue id=”7475″]
And here is the Russian one; it will be updated as subsequent chapters are recorded.
[cue id=”7371″]
And finally—you asked very much to make the navigation between chapters easier. I have set it up for the translation, so feel free to test it. I haven’t done it for the original yet, as it is a very tedious task since it has to be written manually.
I am happy to announce that I have finished translating David Friedman’s book The Machinery of Freedom and am finally posting it as a single file for e-readers. Download it, share the book with those you deem worthy, and be sure to visit the donations page to choose the size of the “like” you want to give.
Additionally, the creation of an audiobook based on the translation is gradually continuing; as of today, the entire first part of the book has been fully voiced, and the second has begun. The text is read by Oleg, and if you would like to thank him for this in some way, message him privately on Telegram and let him provide his details. Or use the payment bot for dash and send him some crypto directly via his Telegram name.
Do you believe that social justice, democracy, general welfare, developed feminism, LGBT rights, juvenile justice, tolerance, reliable protection of human rights, liberty, equality, and fraternity are good or bad, and why?
In classical liberalism, the state is considered an evil necessary for the protection of private property rights. In libertarianism, it is not considered necessary for this function; however, as long as it limits itself to this, its existence may be considered justified. In a conditional EU-style liberalism, the state is viewed as a tool for reconciling the interests of various strata of society, one that is more convenient than free market tools.
What is the convenience of the modern liberal state compared to the classical liberal one? Primarily, it is that being personally responsible for one’s own life is a rather frightening level of responsibility for many people. In the market, you must independently decide which property objects to insure, where, and under what conditions; how much and when to save for unforeseen circumstances or for an entirely predictable old age; which neighbors’ claims to satisfy and which to actively oppose, and if you oppose them, whether to do so independently or in a coalition. This is somewhat complicated; it’s better to spend one’s finite intellectual resources on skills that bring in money, and delegate all the aforementioned tasks, as far as possible, to those who are more savvy in these matters.
In a complex world where narrow specialists interact, a vast number of standardized solutions will inevitably be used, and a significantly smaller number of custom ones. The state is a standardized solution for any issues where it is not entirely clear who to offload them onto. And since such issues are constantly proliferating, the functionality of the state—even one consisting of entirely well-meaning liberal bureaucrats completely devoid of corrupt interests—will inevitably expand.
But as the state grows, its inefficiency inevitably grows as well. A Swiss Army knife with a couple hundred blades looks great in a store window, and you really want to buy this shiny toy, but in everyday life, the vast majority find it more convenient to have one very simple knife for most standard tasks, plus a couple of highly specialized ones that are used rarely, but when others are extremely inconvenient. A durable jumpsuit with a bunch of pockets looks exquisitely designed, but in a relaxed setting, a person throws on shorts and a t-shirt. It seems like you’d want to be able to call 911 and solve absolutely any problem, but in practice, this means you’ll get tired of fighting an automated answering machine, selecting menu items, and in the end, you’ll still be directed to the wrong specialist.
One would think that the more aggressive the environment, the tougher and more reliable the institutions should be. Therefore, on a small yacht in the middle of the sea, a single chain of command and clear functional duties for each crew member are quite appropriate, while on a beach, it’s enough that those wishing to play volleyball don’t trip over those sunbathing; otherwise, let complete anarchy reign and no one will care about anyone else. But the state cannot do that. It grew out of military needs, and it’s like a guy who returned from the front, suffers from PTSD, and is extremely outraged that people on the beach aren’t buttoned up to the top, aren’t marching in formation, and aren’t saluting. If you let him establish his order, everyone will have a hard time, even without unofficial hazing. And it’s no better when the state looks like a safety engineer. Fence off the volleyball court! Divide swimming zones by gender and age! Everyone put on life jackets! Organize the delivery of ice cream and lemonade! But the ice cream must be warm so that no one catches a cold, and the lemonade sugar-free, regardless of the fact that the ice cream has sugar. And then the state will see some kind of COVID, and the whole beach will go down the drain because everyone must stay home and wash their hands.
For Bitarkha, it is important that no one attacks anyone. Because one person will attack with fists, and another will sneeze on the first, and the whole world will die from a virus. So that no one dares to attack anyone, it is desirable that everyone be armed, and those who are not stopped by the sight of a weapon in others’ hands should be stopped some other way. It could be a bullet at the moment of attack, but it’s more humane to make them change their mind, perhaps, say, medicinally. Fortunately, Bitarkha only needs people to observe the NAP; otherwise, he would be indistinguishable from an adept of the COVID-fighting state. In order to live in a safe society, he is willing to pay well.
It is important to me that both I and the people around me are wealthy and free. For this, people must not be robbed or restricted, and they must not be extorted for all sorts of useless nonsense. For this, robbing and restricting must be dangerous, unprofitable, and unprestigious. And I, as a civilized and benevolent person, would of course prefer that people be stopped from robbing and regulating for reasons of lack of prestige, or at the very least, lack of profitability. If I have to ensure a threat to them as well, that will stress me out.
I apologize for the lack of a direct list, such as “I feel this way about social justice, that way about democracy,” and so on.
I’ve almost finished formatting The Machinery of Freedom into a single, easy-to-read file, while simultaneously performing final editing (working at a speed almost like Shulman’s when she was proofreading Pinker). In essence, I’ve formatted everything that is already on the website, and now I’m tinkering with the second of three appendices, where he recommends various pleasant and useful literature. And there, I came across this description:
J. Neil Schulman, Alongside Night (New York: Avon, 1987), The Rainbow Cadenza (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983). Two clearly libertarian novels. The first describes a libertarian uprising in the near future, the second—a society where the ratio of men to women is ten to one, and where women are drafted into prostitution corps. A movie is currently being filmed based on the first one, in which I am to play a small role.
Oh, I thought, how interesting, the movie has surely been made by now, I should look for it. I found it. It’s a freaking masterpiece! A low-budget production with a very low rating, because of which Neil Schulman decided to give up on trying to sell it—and released it for free on YouTube. The entire film consists almost entirely of memes and easter eggs, so I watched it for a long time, constantly hitting pause. I highly recommend watching it; with the right mindset, you will certainly derive great pleasure from this amateur artistic endeavor.
Friedman plays the very modest role of the King of Sweden in the film.
The mysterious organization Civil Society, about which I am only vaguely aware of the activities of the panarchist faction, does not consist solely of it. It seems to contain anarchy-balls of all sorts and colors; in particular, yesterday I was contacted by a representative of the transhumanist faction. And if you expected me to be offered an article on gene therapy, then no, not in this country. In this country, the agenda includes a ban on enlightenment, which a community oriented toward human upgrading cannot help but be worried about.
The transhumanists suggest that the passed law banning enlightenment activities can still be tweaked at the Federation Council level, and thereafter they will continue to closely monitor the adoption of various government acts, without which the new law is a mere empty shell.
Subscribe to the faction’s channel if you are interested in learning from time to time how you can contribute to scientific and technical progress.
