Автор: Анкап-тян

What reforms, measures, and methods must be undertaken for a post-Soviet country to become truly 100% decentralized?

The Average Ukrainian

To accomplish this task, it is not enough to simply, for example, give communities the right to keep most of the taxes: such rights are easy to give and easy to take away. It is important that the reforms be very difficult to reverse. In other words, they must improve people’s lives very quickly and very significantly.

How do you quickly improve people’s lives in the poorest country in Europe? Only by opening the country to a very wide flow of investment. So, the literally first package of proposed reforms is a serious reduction of state intervention in the regulation of the economy.

Right off the bat—the first thing—the abolition of customs, along with duties. If other states want to restrict the export of goods to Ukraine or the import of goods from Ukraine, that is their right. But in Ukraine, there is no one to deal with this nonsense; if people want to trade, they trade.

Second—granting communities the right to take any state functions under their own jurisdiction. If they wish to collect all taxes themselves and set their rates—be my guest. After that, let them negotiate with the center on how much money they are willing to provide as a dowry for those issues they cannot handle on their own. If they do not wish to decide anything themselves—be my guest; the center will appoint people, set the tax rates, and carry out full administration until the citizens gather for a meeting and declare that they have had a nice rest and are ready for self-governance again.

How to choose a president? You don’t need to choose him; sell this unpaid position at auction, for one year without the right of extension, and as for the powers, leave only the right to veto laws passed by the Verkhovna Rada. But that is not urgent; that is already ornamentation. If you don’t want to make money by selling the presidential office, do as they do in Switzerland—it’s not bad there either.

And what about the south-east? There, a Donetsk Sich is created. Since the country is decentralized, few communities will dare to maintain serious armed forces, but here is a region where it is vitally necessary. This means a safari park is needed, where everyone interested in hunting separatists will go, as well as representatives of volunteer organizations who will ensure that the hunt is conducted without poaching. You arrive, pay for a trip—and off you go. Whatever you capture is yours. The task of the Sich leadership is to organize coordination so that they don’t shoot each other; that’s what the money is collected for. And to promptly conduct the demarcation of those districts whose residents have decided to reclassify themselves from hunting grounds to a full-fledged territory of the Sich, handed over their separatists for trial, and elected representatives to the Sich self-government—and that’s it, the residents of the territory have regained their status as human beings. I don’t know how effectively this will reduce the size of the hunting grounds, but the question was about what measures are needed to ensure decentralization. Well, without a decentralized volunteer army, you will not hold a decentralized country.

It turns out I didn’t even invent this term. I wouldn’t be surprised if all the other advice also turns out to be sheer banality.

Infosec from Svetov, a brief review

Mikhail Svetov has released the long-announced video on methods for disappearing from radars and setting up anonymous and pseudonymous identities. The disclaimer states that tech-savvy people are unlikely to learn much new from it. I am not a techie; I learned something.

My pseudonymous identity was created with many vulnerabilities, so I do not expect it to withstand any close scrutiny, and I view my activity more as an intellectual game. If I suddenly need to create a new pseudonymous identity from scratch, I will use Mikhail’s advice. To the extent that I already apply the methods he proposed, I have no complaints: it really works. Therefore, one can cautiously assume that there will be no serious holes in the parts I haven’t tried.

I am glad that Svetov has reconsidered his position regarding the extent to which anonymous sources can be trusted. It is a pity that he had to make many mistakes and lose a lot of money to reach this conclusion, but what can you do—that is the price for excessive snobbery and the desire to keep one’s cloak white for as long as possible.

P.S. Viewers noted that in his tutorial, Svetov did not finish typing the command to update packages in the terminal, and as a result, only updated their list. The correct command looks like this:

sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

Blitz-4

Some guys from Reddit bought a bunch of shares in dead companies and ruined “greedy” hedge funds for shorting those companies. Who is more in the right in this situation?

Anal Magician

Those who leave the casino and go play chess are more in the right.

I have already analyzed the topic of market manipulation, and even more specifically, the pump and dump scheme. My reflections boiled down to the fact that if traders are doing this, it is a strategy as risky as any other. And attempts to regulate it are exactly the same kind of market manipulation. So, if a trading platform in principle implies the possibility of closing trading to prevent someone from making a profit, then there is no point in being on such platforms. It’s not surprising that the Reddit guys eventually ignored the stocks and went to trade crypto. Over time, the smartest among them will even understand which crypto is better for buying and holding, and which is only for speculation. But on crypto exchanges, at least their toy won’t be taken away, even if there is a danger that they might upset someone with it.

I am reading the translation of The Mechanics of Freedom. Very interesting, thank you. My English is at the level of reading an English-Russian dictionary, so this will not be criticism, but rather a question. At the end of the chapter Rare means exhaustible, the “problem of abundance” is mentioned. This really triggered me. Abundance is the best thing humanity can hope for, and calling it a problem is blasphemy.

Then I remembered that “false friends” of the translator exist, and the meaning of “problem” is much broader than the Russian “проблема” — it can be a task, a question, or even a situation.

I’m still triggered. I want to understand: is this just a translation inaccuracy, or does the author really think that abundance has some kind of problems?

Dnar

From the text, it seemed quite obvious to me that the author is being ironic about leftists who claim that the emergence of abundance will cause problems for the existence of private property. Yes, indeed, many things that were once paid will become free, and this only means a transition to other monetization schemes, as we see, for example, in the case of copies of texts. Property as a concept will not disappear. It is precisely competition in the production of goods and services that drives their price down so much that it can even become zero. But in order for the problem of how to get money for something cheap and easily accessible to arise in the first place, capitalism is exactly what is needed. This paradox is, in fact, the theme of the chapter.

Should abortion be banned or not?

I have analyzed this topic — once and twice. I can only add to what was previously stated that the question of whether one should have an abortion is as unpleasant as the question of whether one should perform anesthesia by hitting the back of the head with a mallet. As long as we do not have available methods of anesthesia that do not cause a concussion as a side effect, there are a huge number of situations in which such a barbaric method would be better than none at all. But when science has already stepped far enough forward, mallet anesthesia may only be required in a very exotic situation. The same goes for preventing the birth of a child. Should it be banned to surgically remove it from the body without a chance of survival for the fetus? As long as there are no less barbaric methods at hand, there are a huge number of situations in which it is better to do it this way. But when science gives us a wide variety of contraceptive means, surgical abortion becomes a much rarer procedure than it could be.

How should one treat those who, on principle, force people not to use protection and to give birth? Offer them appendicitis treatment without anesthesia.

Why didn’t ancap happen?

In the past (150-200 years ago and earlier), laws were much more primitive than they are now. Many aspects of life were not regulated at all, many definitions of terms were missing (for example, “everyone must pray loudly in the mornings” — how loud is loud, and where is the boundary of the morning?), and many points were left to the discretion of the subjects of law and the enforcers. Additionally, everyone had the right to carry weapons, and the tax burden was quite primitive. Can it be considered that the society of that time was much closer to ancap than the current one? And if so, why did we take the wrong turn?

анонимный вопрос

On this topic, it is worth first revisiting one of our videos about the stationary bandit, where we explain this simple theory and show how the natural state turned into the strange absurdity we have now.

Specifically, the video indicates where we took the wrong turn. We took the wrong turn every time we traded freedom for security. In the case of the proto-ancap of Ireland or Iceland, we are talking about the external conquest of quite blatant backwaters, so one could say it didn’t matter what the natives chose; they effectively had no choice, and brute force decided. But in the USA, you cannot rely on the factor of external conquest, as they managed to win the War of Independence in a mode of anarchy. But after that, there was indeed a turn in the wrong direction. In a free market, competition among producers is beneficial to the consumer. But to the producer, of course, a monopoly is beneficial. There are more consumers, but they are worse organized. A cohesive minority is capable of securing a disproportionately large amount of influence. Thus, in the USA, the federal government began to swell, introducing economic regulations, and the state of affairs in the states began to look less and less like ancap. They put a finger in the state’s mouth, and it bit off the whole arm.

From a slightly different perspective, but in much greater detail, this process is examined in the book by Rodion Belkovich, Blood of Patriots, which I recently pirated (don’t forget to donate to the CRI after reading, as the author dislikes pirates and needs to be re-educated). In Europe, the same processes took place with even greater permissiveness from society because they never even got a whiff of real anarchy, so they tried to invent an unreal one based on the denial of private property.

Next, check out our second video on the conditions for the stability of anarchy.

There, we talk about the main condition without which nothing will work. Looking at the macro level, it is a matter of prevailing values. The value of freedom must be higher than the value of security; otherwise, it will be impossible to turn toward ancap, and even if one manages to get there, without the personal protection of one’s rights, it is easy to return to slavery.

But how can freedom remain more valuable than security if the value of human life is growing? The thing is, there are living people on the aggressor’s side too, and they also value security. The willingness to inflict unacceptable damage on the attacker during defense is the basis of the deterrence doctrine, about which we also made a video, and I suggest finishing today’s topic with it.

Si vis pacem para bellum

Everything is fine, the protest is drained

I will reflect a bit on the topic of the protest’s collapse and hope that after this, I can move on from the Navalny theme for a long time.

What did Volkov tell us on the February 4 stream? That they, of course, anticipated the possibility of imprisonment, and for this occasion they have a plan: to seize the assets of Putin’s circle abroad, thereby causing a split among the elites and bringing about the “tabaquero” scenario (or the final transformation of the RF into Belarus, where the dictator’s circle doesn’t show their noses abroad, but instead enjoys themselves fully at home).

Svetov reacted to this, stating that stopping the street actions was a good idea, but it would have been even better not to start them at all: simply come to Russia and silently go to jail.

And here I cannot help but be outraged. Why go to jail at all? What, was the task of seizing the property of Putin’s circle unsolvable without the imprisonment of one Navalny and sixteen thousand people outraged by Navalny’s imprisonment? Is it impossible to speak before the European Parliament or the US Congress without this? Actually, it seems the opposite: imprisonment only hinders this, as colleagues have to speak instead. Can’t you release new exposés without being in jail? No, videos with Alexei are clearly more lively than without him. Or would fewer people have watched the video about the palace if he hadn’t arranged a promo tour from Berlin to the Kremlin Central prison? Yes, perhaps fewer. Maybe by ten million. Is that so critical?

In short, Volkov did not convince me, and I continue to believe that Navalny was completely mistaken to fear that he would fade away abroad and become uninteresting as a politician. By going to prison, he created many difficulties for many good people, and yes, this is pure victim-blaming on my part: you shouldn’t fly to such a dangerous country wearing such a short skirt.

Of course, there is a certain probability that foreign elites didn’t fully believe Bellingcat’s investigation into Navalny’s poisoning, and the self-sacrifice became simply a final demonstration: yes, look, they have truly lost their minds over there, now live with this and fight, if you can. If this is the case, it certainly casts a shadow on the impeccable moral qualities of Grandpa Biden and Grandma Merkel, and portrays them as cannibals.

But anyway. Putin successfully survived another crisis involving tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets; the security forces stretched their legs after Covid, and are now cheerful, spirited, and ready to arrest everyone on weekends even without any mass actions. Detainees are fined, they bill the FBK, and then they win these cases in Strasbourg, but that is a slow process. And people have only just felt the drive, and now they are talking about a “drain” precisely because all activity ended so abruptly, while they had only just woken up from a year-long Covid slumber.

Forgive me, but the FBK is not your helper here. It is a machine for conducting and promoting anti-corruption investigations. The FBK will continue to act using FBK methods. And Navalny’s headquarters will not help you. That is an electoral machine. They will continue to use the doctrine of smart voting. If you desire something more—not just going to the street when asked, and donating and liking the rest of the time—you will have to organize yourselves. The main thing here is not to chase glory or mass appeal. You simply spend pleasant time in the company of reliable friends you managed to make in some other setting. And then you read in the news: “unknown persons decorated the mayor’s office building with fresh graffiti” or “unknown persons slashed the tires of a judge’s car.” “How strange,” you send the news to your friends, “what a weird story, what did the car do to offend them?”

From which side should Temasek be gnawed?

After publishing yesterday’s post, I encountered an interesting objection from Anton Epikhin, the lead of the channel RLN.Today. He argued that my idea of privatizing a profitable state-owned company is not the best thing that can be done to abolish the state. In short, the reasoning is as follows. People are used to a certain set of public goods provided by the state, and the state’s refusal to provide them would cause widespread outrage, and therefore the situation would be quickly rolled back. Consequently, from a purely political standpoint, it is quite difficult to strip the state of habitual functions such as the police or courts, even if it provides these services at a high cost and very low quality. However, one can try to sell citizens the idea that these services be provided by joint-stock companies where all citizens are shareholders. But a “Court” JSC is also not the most obvious idea. However, if one starts with a state investment company, then why not; this type of state ownership is certainly not essential, and the idea of transferring it to citizens would be successful. Instead of selling it at auction to private individuals, with a subsequent distribution of the proceeds among citizens, the company’s shares could be distributed equally among citizens. After the change of nominal owners, the company would continue to operate in the same mode, except that instead of paying dividends to the sole shareholder—the state—it would pay them to the new shareholders—the citizens.

I reasonably countered that it doesn’t really make a difference. After receiving the shares, people will still decide for themselves what to do with them—hold them, sell them, or buy them from others to obtain a large stake. With equal success, one could have first sold them to those interested, and then let them spend the proceeds however they wish. But no, Anton replies, there is a difference. Having seen the example of high-liquidity state assets and realized that they can be transferred to the ownership of citizens, citizens will get a taste for it and will be more likely after some time to demand that this operation be repeated with other assets, including the army and the police. But if the investment company were simply sold and the money distributed, it would be much easier to say about other state structures that “you don’t understand, this is different,” and that “this other thing” will be funded by taxes.

It still seems to me that there is no significant difference. More precisely, there is none from an economic point of view, but as for which specific decision from a psychological and political rhetoric standpoint will be easier to sell to people, and which is more likely to be followed by further steps toward the denationalization of society—that is difficult for me to say. So I am simply describing this point of view; perhaps it is indeed valid, and in that case, any Singaporeans among my readers should, of course, insist specifically on such an option for the reorganization of Temasek Holdings.

Why is the Indonesian state company Temasek so successful if state management is inefficient?

анонимный вопрос

As far as I can tell, this most likely refers to the Singaporean company Temasek Holdings. As we all know from the blockbuster about Putin’s palace, the funds for its construction were initially accumulated from kickbacks on the supply of medical equipment to budget institutions under the pretext of creating a sovereign wealth fund. Given that during Putin’s first term, the concept of authoritarian modernization and, specifically, Singapore, was constantly looming in public discourse, it can be assumed that there was a desire to create something like Temasek.

Essentially, we are dealing with an interesting way of increasing a country’s investment attractiveness: instead of maintaining high taxes, state corporations are formed, whose official task is to bring profit to the budget. The more profit from state corporations, the less the need for taxes. As a result, a country like Saudi Arabia, thanks to revenues from the state oil industry, could allow its few citizens to live in practically a tax-free state.

State corporations can also be used to develop infrastructure or, for example, for geopolitical goals. This is also a powerful tool, but as soon as other considerations begin to prevail over economic ones, the income from such corporations naturally declines. The infrastructure being built may turn out to be unwanted, and geopolitical efforts can just as easily end in failure. So, adopting some Chinese experience is a dangerous game for a state.

But, as far as I can tell, in Singapore, the state holding simply invests in attractive assets around the world; that is, the state consciously imposed self-restrictions, allocated a package of state ownership for use strictly for commercial purposes, and has consistently adhered to this tactic.

Of course, the greatest danger for the citizens of a state who expect to be the beneficiaries of a state corporation is that the company’s managers have their own opinion on “benefit,” and they start plundering the company. That is why Lee Kuan Yew first very harshly suppressed corruption, then spent several more years diligently weeding that garden, and only then created the investment company in 1974.

I took a look at the company’s financial indicators. Over the last ten years, the company’s portfolio has grown by 70%. Thus, it can be stated that if you do not set unnatural goals for an investment company, punish corruption mercilessly, and implement all the advanced reporting and management practices developed in the market, there is a chance that the company will indeed operate like a market entity and with fully comparable indicators. Well, yes, authoritarian modernization is indeed possible, and state institutions are indeed capable of following written rules for some time under strict control. Nevertheless, I wish for the Singaporeans to privatize this company, reducing government spending by the amount of lost budget revenues—and divide the one-time profit from privatization equally among the citizens. They’ve played around—enough is enough; you cannot win at the casino indefinitely. Then, each citizen can decide for themselves whether to use the proceeds to buy shares in Temasek Holdings or something else.

Yet another monstrous piracy

Not long ago, the audience of my Telegram chat watched in real time as I tried to crack an audio file in Amazon’s proprietary aaxc format and convert it into a human-readable mp3. Thanks to the help of readers and a bit of luck, I managed to do it in one evening.

Now, each chapter of the original text of David Friedman’s book The Machinery of Freedom is accompanied by audio where the author himself reads the corresponding chapter. Actually, I was cracking the audiobook for slightly different reasons, but I’ll get to that later; for now, I’ve put the intermediate result to use.

A translation of the first of three appendices to the book has also been published, but that’s a minor detail, needed only to change the number on the progress bar. For the most part, I am currently occupied with the final editing and layout of the translation into epub format.

By the way, regarding the audio. If anyone is interested in voicing the translation of the book, let’s collaborate. Record the poems from the epigraphs of all parts of the book and send the recording to me in a private message. Then, if the selection is representative enough, we will hold a vote on whose version to post on my site and, accordingly, suggest it to Friedman himself for his site. He has already prepared a section for his poems in Russian, but it’s empty for now, and this injustice should be corrected. And if the contest winner has the strength to voice the entire book (which is over twelve hours), that would be simply mega-cool, and it will almost certainly be rewarded by a grateful public.

Navalny’s Actions, Betting on the Rise

Last night, I thought about sharing my own impressions of the recent street protests while they were still fresh, but a more interesting news item came up. Alexei Nefedov, a former author of this channel, was detained on the street, so I decided to ask him how it all happened. And since I’m not very good at interviewing, the conversation quickly drifted into a more abstract discussion, which turned out to be quite interesting.

– I found out about your detention when I was already on my way home, because I rarely took my phone out on the street and only checked the coordination channel. This is the first time a close acquaintance of mine has been detained. In general, detentions have become the norm, so I wasn’t particularly worried; instead, I immediately decided to take the opportunity to ask how it looks from the other side—sorry for being so callous. To start with, how on earth did you get caught?

– When the report was being drawn up, I took Article 51, and I haven’t discussed the defense strategy with my lawyer yet, so I’ll refrain from commenting for now. I can only say that the recommendations you posted in the channel on Friday—it’s not that they are bad, they just work for different conditions. You talk about what a large mass of people should do, but they won’t be able to do it without a team. And you can only command anonymously via Telegram. That signal will be severely delayed. Fantasies about some kind of flag signals are for people who have had at least some coordination training. Not our case, in short. Therefore, people walked in scattered columns; they were easily split up, and movement was blocked. Detentions were also effortless. You can form a chain on the square, but it’s impossible in a column. The security forces control the entire roadway, so they can pop out from the side or behind and unexpectedly attack anyone. That’s exactly what happened to me.

– Strange, most of my recommendations concerned individual tactics, or small groups of acquaintances staying in clusters. But I was still hoping that the level of coordination would be higher. What happened after the detention?

– For starters, for some reason, instead of a classic police van, they used an ordinary Gazelle, without bars, with regular civilian plates. If not for the low ceiling, you might have thought it was taken off a shuttle route. Eight people were shoved in there, two “cosmonauts” [riot police] climbed in, and off we went to the police station. We arrived quickly, but then we sat in front of the doors for half an hour, so there was time to chat with the cosmonauts. Completely apolitical, good-natured guys. If we have to detain—we detain. If we have to kill—we kill. An order is an order. To the attacks of their fellow passengers, they replied that they simply didn’t understand life and invited them to go work for the National Guard to get their act together. In general, in the entire assembly line for stamping out administrative charges, a well-oiled routine is evident. They brought us in, waited for the signal that we could be brought inside, led us in pairs, and took us to the basement. There was more waiting, then the drawing up of the delivery and search report. Then to the duty office, where they have orders to do photography and fingerprinting. This is illegal, but it is demanded of them. So they try to push through purely psychologically, and they do it very well. I refused to roll my fingers and was sure that I would now be charged with violating the legal requirements of the police under Article 19.3. I even reset my phone to factory settings just in case. But none of that really matters, in the end. Generally, this feeling of the pointlessness of any fuss is very strong in the police station. Quotes from the Strugatsky brothers immediately come to mind, where an old revolutionary said: it’s not scary now, but when they were sawing off my arm and complaining about low wages—that’s when it was scary.

– What is expected next?

– They have three days to transfer the case to court, then they’ll call me and tell me the date. In court, I get a fine and file an appeal with the regional court. The appeal is denied, and I apply to the ECHR. In about three years, the ECHR awards me compensation. The fine is paid after the appeal is denied. I can pay it myself or ask the FBK for help. FBK lawyers also help prepare the ECHR application. In short, on our side, it’s also a completely routine conveyor belt, where not only the deadlines but also the court results are known in advance. There is also an unpleasant moment. For six months, protests are contraindicated for me until the administrative charge expires. As you correctly noted, two administrative charges mean the loss of the right to own a weapon. So now I’m sitting still, suing the state, not stirring things up. Or I’ll have to transfer the gun to acquaintances if I want to continue my activism.

– Svetov has a stream going on literally right now. In it, like me, he says that Navalny overestimated his influence, and in this situation, no peaceful protest will yield results. It can only provide a picture for diplomatic pressure on the regime from the outside. A week ago, it seemed to me that there were chances that the protest would soon stop being peaceful. Now it seems that the chance is lost. What do you think?

– Everyone is forced to judge by the part of the picture they see directly. Then they compare data and get a more comprehensive understanding. I only had time to return, wash up, and have dinner; I haven’t even read the feed yet. In the section where I was today, the wall is strong; it can’t be broken by forehead. There are so many security forces that they will disperse protests of this scale and intensity without breaking a sweat. The damage to the economy from blocking the city center for three hours on a weekend is minimal. Moreover, we are the province; everyone understands that the decision about Navalny is made in Moscow, and we are just there for the crowd. When selfish interests are touched, as was the case during the protests over utility tariffs, people are angrier and more active. No one here will seriously stand up for Navalny. Just compare how they shouted “freedom for Navalny” today versus “freedom for Boyko.” Boyko is closer, more popular; they will shout louder for him. But he will be released in mid-February, so people will limit themselves to shouting and won’t get into a fight.

– So you think everything is useless?

– Street politics is a very necessary training in self-organization, in the self-awareness of civil society. In this sphere, we have already streamlined a lot. All I did during the detention was press the red button. Then invisible wheels started turning, and that’s it—LPR writes about the detention on Twitter, OVD-Info calls me, a lawyer arrives, a care package arrives, all further litigation is put on stream. People are learning to peacefully defend their interests through voluntary cooperation. These are the skills that are relevant under ancap. These examples make it easy to show how ancap works. With these people, we will eventually build it. Or not ancap, but panarchy. Because systemic communists have their own mutual aid network, left-wing anarchists have theirs, nationalists have theirs. We are already streamlining society with ECU. It’s just that the streamlining is happening against the backdrop of opposing a single external threat.

– These are all very long terms, but young people have a short planning horizon. Don’t you think people might simply burn out?

– It’s important to switch. I’m temporarily finishing with street activity now and will find myself another occupation. Maybe it will be helping those who will still be detained. Maybe I’ll go give lectures on Bitcoin. Rest is switching to other types of activity. Parties are good in that they are large organizations with several different directions of work; burnout happens much slower than if you, for example, only participate in open-ended protests or only volunteer at elections.

– Parties seem to me a way to unproductively spend a huge amount of time. In my own channel, I also have the most diverse activities and answer questions on a wide variety of topics. But once I switched to street protest, I became close to burnout because there is no immediate result. It’s not like writing a post, discussing the publication, and then writing a new one tomorrow.

– Imagine that you’re just going to a fitness center. You also give yourself a regular load and change imperceptibly. In the process, it may be boring or unpleasant, but you see people around you doing the same thing, which also helps to motivate yourself.

– In short, we’ll keep pumping the invisible butt of the market. Alright, thanks for the story, good night)))

Aesthetics and Propriety as Applied to Book Piracy

Rodion Belkovich has for the first time publicly responded to the appearance of the electronic version of his “Blood of Patriots”. It is clearly evident from this: Rodion Belkovich and I could live within the framework of one republic, since we agree on legal issues (authorship is unconditional; copyright is doubtful, however, restrictions on copying can be introduced by contract; and, of course, appealing to gangsters for help in resolving conflicts that did not arise from the use of violence is unacceptable) and share common interests (we want as many people as possible to read the smart books we like).

Where Rodion and I diverge is in our perceptions of aesthetics and propriety. For Belkovich, paper books possess aesthetic value; they represent respectability and respect for tradition. For me, paper is dust and mustiness, a synonym for stagnation and one of the inherent attributes of Putin, with his famous folders. For Rodion, it is improper, while providing a free service to an indefinitely wide circle of people, to remind the public of the possibility of expressing their gratitude in monetary form. For me, the ancient Soviet tradition of selling a product as a bundle is improper, requiring those who wish to buy the market-demanded Belkovich to also pay for the publication of an unsellable Ficino (though it is quite proper to advertise Ficino’s book right on the paper pages of one’s own bestseller).

That is exactly why I meticulously listed: pay here to support the author, here to support the paper publisher, and here to support the electronic publisher. For me, this is a truly important ethical issue—to ensure maximum transparency of conditions for the consumer. For these same reasons, I, for example, will not place “джинса” (sponsored content) in the channel, I will indicate which donations I received for answers to certain questions, how much the contract for content placement with Bitarch costs, and even how much referral commission I will receive from your transactions in the btc_banker bot. Speaking more broadly, the spheres of what is permitted and appropriate for me, as a fairly typical libertarian, are of course very different.

So, although Rodion Belkovich and I can live within one res publica, it will be more comfortable for us to live further apart and clearly define the boundaries of our res privata. Perhaps then we won’t fight.

Books are lying on the floor. Just imagine if they tried to do that in a mosque!