Автор: Анкап-тян

Erik Mack. Libertarianism. Chapter on Mill.

About a month ago, I received a small donation for the translation of Eric Mack. It’s not that I was in a great rush with this translation, but I didn’t want to completely ignore the fact that someone felt it was important to encourage the process a bit. So here is a fresh chapter, the penultimate one in the part dedicated to the philosophical prerequisites for the emergence of libertarianism. The translation took some effort: John Stuart Mill wrote quite convolutedly.

The chapter is dedicated to utilitarian arguments in favor of freedom—in other words, attempts to justify its necessity not only by so-called natural rights (which is not a justification at all, but a simple postulate, as if there is such a right, and that’s that), but also by social utility. Of course, with the transition to methodological subjectivism, straightforward reasoning about the common good began to look somewhat like an anachronism, though not entirely, which surprised me a little. In essence, in his utilitarian arguments, from which any totalitarian doctrine can be easily derived if desired, Mill arrives at our old acquaintance, self-ownership, the primacy of individual security, and other liberal attributes.

From our current perspective, this, of course, looks like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Mill was a priori convinced of the value of individual freedom, and thereafter his task was reduced to selecting arguments as to why it is necessary to ensure the highest common good. Had he been a priori convinced of the value of Sharia norms or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, he could have constructed arguments in exactly the same way, proving that these very crucial things were needed to achieve the highest common good.

Don’t forget to encourage the translation process with your donations.

Who Benefits from the Fight Against Violence. A New Video from Libertarian Band.

Towards the end of the year, Libertarian Band finally put out the final video of the cycle on violence. It turned out to be somewhat relaxed and encouraging, just what is needed at the end of December. The idea is that yes, violence is certainly a problem, but it is a problem for many, and many stand to benefit from solving it. And since it looks technically solvable, and since both the goal and the means exist, it will, of course, be solved.

I have two main grievances with the entire cycle. First, it is quite abstract. The problem of violence in general is like the problem of poverty in general. People are more concerned with their personal safety and personal well-being, and discussing macro-parameters significantly reduces engagement. Second, the postulated division between self-defense and revenge is largely artificial. Accordingly, arguing that the former is virtuous while the latter is not will inevitably spark disputes: why exactly is it not, and where is the line? For instance, I am hit, I hit back, and I am told that I am wrong, that revenge is bad, and that I should use non-violent methods. I claim it was self-defense, and I am told that it cannot be self-defense if I have already been hit. Why is a one-second difference in the exchange of blows acceptable, but a one-day difference is not?

Nevertheless, personal safety correlates with the overall level of violence, just as personal well-being correlates with the overall level of poverty, and non-violent methods of conflict resolution are very effective in a vast number of cases. So, for the time being, the adepts of the approach promoted in this cycle remain my allies. Specifically, exactly until the general obsession with this approach reduces my own personal safety, and that is still a long way off.

Can corporations create their own army, police, and so on, thereby subjugating the people?

анонимный вопрос

Of course they can. The most vivid example of this is the British East India Company. Therefore, the question one must actually answer is “how to prevent corporations from doing this?”

Political philosophers have long been chewing over a related question about how to prevent a government from descending into tyranny. The proposed solutions can be divided into two categories. The first is technological. These are various schemes for the separation of powers and other types of institution-building. The second is ideological. This is the promotion of a readiness to resist any attempts to slide into tyranny.

It is roughly the same with corporations. One can build schemes for exactly how conflicts will be resolved in a distributed mode under ancap. For example, I am quite fond of the Friedmanite, or the related Molinieu scheme. Or one can simply postulate that, firstly, it is always the individual who decides whether to abide by a particular contract or leave it, and secondly, that man is the measure of all things, and if he believes he sees an injustice, it is up to him to decide whether to help eliminate it. There is no magic non-aggression pact that is mandatory for universal compliance; there are only private notions of what is right. Has a corporation crossed the line? The corporation should be punished.

Anarchy is not viable without the constant readiness of people to take direct action to uphold justice. Certain structures, such as dispute resolution organizations, simply allow for the division of labor. A small and tight-knit corporation of evil is capable of terrorizing a small territory and squeezing it dry. But under conditions of anarchy, it has little chance of building on that success and expanding beyond a certain limit: the accumulation of a critical mass of coordinated adversaries will drain all the corporation’s strength into containing them.

So, if I wished to assert myself under ancap through coercion and the seizure of others’ property, I would do so with a small group, anonymously, and vanish into the night as soon as the opponent regained their senses. In a developed information world, this would most likely mean hacking attacks—it is harder to cover one’s tracks after raids on physical objects. Yes, this kind of criminality is entirely possible and even viable under ancap. But all those speculative cases in the vein of “your grandfather installed a pirated version of Windows half a century ago, interest on the penalty has accrued since then, and therefore by the decision of our pocket court, you are consigned to contract slavery for thirty years”—these are attempts to imagine an anarchy in which everyone remains afflicted by statist brain rot. As long as they are afflicted, there will simply be no anarchy, and once the disease is overcome, such cases will become impossible.

A little bit about neoreaction

I was contacted by the owner of a small Telegram channel Neo-Anarchism who asked me to take a look at his article on neo-reaction and promote it if possible. Perhaps he will even be so kind as to donate some “non-money” for this)))

In principle, the article provides a sufficiently balanced representation of the subject for those who are not particularly familiar with it (for me, for example). The author concludes that neo-reaction is an eclectic complex of views that emerged as a result of disappointment in democratic institutions, while maintaining strong approval of market institutions. Moreover, since the movement originated in the USA, conservative cultural views inevitably attached themselves to the market, but not very firmly, hence the eclecticism. And while ancap suggests a transition to decentralized systems of social coordination, neo-reaction rather expresses a belief in authoritarian models.

In my view, the only worthy application of this ideology is to feed it to existing authoritarian leaders so that, standing at the crossroads between Putin and Lee Kuan Yew, they would have more arguments in favor of preferring the latter. But since it is easier to be Putin, and few people think about the long-term consequences of this decision at the start of a dictator’s career, the expected effect is doubtful.

Besides the article on neo-reaction, other useful things appear in the channel from time to time; the author of the channel himself, having firmly decided on his anarchic worldview, is apparently still thoughtfully looking around, glancing sometimes to the left, towards communes, and sometimes to the right, towards nimble entrepreneurs. All the better, then, as we can expect the appearance of materials dedicated to the comparison of different directions of anarchism.

Good news from Navalny

I listened to the latest Navalny today, and I am very glad. By all appearances, he does intend to remain abroad, because it is much more convenient for him to throw a wrench in the regime’s works from there. Here he has the GDR archives, or wherever he is digging through the excavations of Putin’s German past. Here he has a Bulgarian colleague from Bellingcat. Here he has quick access to the EU establishment. As for the fieldwork in Russia, there are people to handle that. So, Alexei will live on.

For those who, for some reason, are still not aware of what this is about: Navalny pulled off a cool prank. Almost immediately after publishing his video investigation into the poisoning, he started calling the subjects of the investigation, introducing himself as an advisor to the Secretary of the Security Council and shaking them down for materials for a briefing note addressed to the first person. Only one operative fell for the trick, but what was heard perfectly complements the investigation materials, and now Navalny’s evidence is becoming absolutely ironclad.

Now we should expect obvious movement at the international level. If it is possible to file a lawsuit in one international court or another—good. If we have to settle for some situationally issued sanctions against Putin—well, that will also do. But it is far more interesting to watch the reaction in Russia.

To be more specific, I am talking about dormant institutions. During the transformation of hybrid regimes, they have a tendency to wake up and suddenly start working; there is a chance that this will happen in our case as well. We have already seen an appeal from several Tomsk municipal deputies demanding the opening of a criminal case regarding the poisoning. They were joined by colleagues from several other regions. But our state has too many nannies, which is why it’s always running around like a blind foal. So, besides a deputy’s appeal to the Investigative Committee, one could imagine the possibility of raising the issue of a parliamentary investigation at the State Duma level, some movements from the prosecutor’s office, or finally, an impeachment attempt. Of course, this will not get the support of the majority, but the news hook is loud, and there will surely be public politicians who find it possible to use this for PR.

It seems to me that a flash mob involving writing letters to one’s deputies, as well as to the heads of Duma factions, could work well right now. Something along the lines of: “I have received information from open sources regarding the illegal activities of the FSB. The explanations given by the president during the press conference are clearly insufficient. Could you initiate a parliamentary investigation into this matter, which has already gained significant international resonance and therefore should not be hushed up in the State Duma.”

I won’t provide precise wording; I am not very competent in that. I hope Ekaterina Mikhailovna will formulate a plan of action more clearly in her program tomorrow, with a specific link on where to search and where to write. Something in the final days of 2020 has triggered such a flurry of activity that I’ve completely rebranded myself as a political scientist—ugh, I shouldn’t do that, that’s not why you read me. But it’s also impossible not to share this funny prank, please bear with me)

To the moon

A little over two weeks ago, Bitcoin came very close to its historical all-time highs in US dollars. It reached the mark on some exchanges and began to hesitate near the peak. And today, it has finally confidently captured this height. So, we can officially congratulate each other on the end of the three-year decline. To everyone holding bitcoins, you have my respect. To everyone who isn’t, you have my pity. To everyone trying to halt its adoption, you have my disdain.

Nonviolent State. A new video from Libertarian Band.

The team I previously had the honor of representing has released their latest video, partially based on my script, which in turn was based on Bitarch’s article of the same name. On boosty, I posted a whole series of iterations showing how the script evolved. The next video is already terra incognita; my work is not involved there, and I am curious to see what they come up with. If it turns out well, who knows, perhaps I will be able to hand over my main text channel to someone over time.

Readers are wondering why Bitarch’s share on my channel has grown so sharply. It’s quite simple: he purchased a subscription for such publications for 5,000 rubles per month. These terms turned out to be more convenient for me than pondering every time whether or not to post a particular piece of material he suggested for free. Similarly, I guaranteed to answer questions accompanied by donations, while all others will be answered as I can.

By the way, speaking of questions. I want to test a certain model. I have created a separate subscription level on boosty for 50 rubles a month. Subscribers will see all the questions I receive and will be able to mark in the comments which ones they would be interested in seeing answered. In this way, even if a question was not accompanied by a donation, a paid subscriber can promote it (Of course, subscribers of more expensive plans will also have this capability). As we know from economic theory, it is through the pricing structure that real human needs are determined. Let’s see how this works in our case.

Navalny. Prospects.

I read with great interest Navalny’s publication about the investigation into his poisoning conducted by Bellingcat. It is also available in video format; it’s roughly the same as the text, just slightly more detailed and interspersed with memes. It’s better to open it directly on YouTube rather than in the embedded player, so you can leave a like.

It seems to me that Navalny is mistaken in thinking there will be hysteria across all channels now. Rather, the opposite: they will ignore him, like some Hunter Biden. But, of course, a purely Russian quirk will be added—the reverse cargo cult glorified by Ekaterina Schulmann. The cult servants will snicker sardonically and wonder why we think all other planes in the world aren’t made of twigs and actually know how to fly. Naturally, all intelligence agencies of all countries in the world that have any ambitions at all poison or otherwise deal with those they dislike; everything is under control everywhere. And the fact that the dealings of specifically Russian intelligence agencies are so well-known is not because they are so reckless, but only because an info-war is being waged against them.

And, for the most part, these guys are right. Indeed, any state is a systemic aggressor. Indeed, any state, if its hand is not slapped, quickly senses impunity and begins to create total chaos. And those who try to slap its hand and expose it face various absurd misfortunes all over the world, like some Assange.

What will happen next? Next, Navalny will return to Russia, and then he will finally be killed, only this time bluntly and without artistry. The man just doesn’t get the hints, mocks in every way, makes them look ridiculous, and what then—will the old man give up and decide to leave him alone? What is there to be shy about? Will people really take to the streets? Well, let them come out once a year, on the anniversary of his death, like they did for Nemtsov. Let them leave flowers and light candles; that’s a problem for the municipal workers. Or is someone counting on a Maidan? And who will call people to the barricades? Kira Yarmysh or Yulia Navalnaya? Perhaps Leonid Volkov or Vladimir Milov? Alas, we can count on the Belarusian scenario at most, with peaceful unauthorized strolls that will be either ignored or brutally dispersed, with endless fines slapped on the participants.

At the current stage, the best thing Navalny is capable of doing, he is already doing. He is gaining publicity from the assassination attempt and trying to squeeze the harshest possible personal sanctions against Putin and his inner circle from other states. So he should stay in Europe for now, especially since there are two excellent, very compelling reasons. First, the rehabilitation period after poisoning can be extended indefinitely—there is no clinical practice, no one will check. Second, he can focus on searching for the foreign assets of Putin’s circle and striving for their seizure. Let them go to the Yukos shareholders; that’s still better than paying 57 billion from our taxes.

Who even cares where a popular blogger is physically located if he regularly produces quality content? But Navalny will go to Russia because he believes that is where he belongs. This will end tragically; I am very sorry.

We will hit the passport, not the face

In connection with the recent publications from Bitarch regarding the construction of a non-violent society, I would like to recommend the anime series Psycho-Pass to everyone. Three seasons have been released, plus some side stories; so far, I have only watched the first.

The main protagonist of the series is a quasi-minarchist society in which an effective method for the prevention of violence has been developed, but not through genetic modification and BPN, as Bitarch suggests, but through the creation of a Big Brother capable of rapid diagnosis of tendencies toward violence. In all other matters, the state does not particularly interfere, although in the area of material production, it is unclear whether it is a market or socialism—under conditions of robotic abundance, it is easy to confuse the two.

The series is intelligent. It quotes Weber, Shakespeare, Pascal, Foucault, and discusses William Gibson and Philip K. Dick—in short, it is the kind of thing that our Ekaterina Schulmann would not be ashamed to recommend, although she prefers Pixar studio productions. It might be a bit difficult to watch at first; I got into it on my second attempt—but it is definitely worth the time spent.

I would like to find out about the foreign policy of an anarcho-capitalist society. I have read The Mechanics of Liberty, but I still didn’t understand it well enough.

анонимный вопрос

Friedman devoted two chapters of The Machinery of Freedom to the problem of territorial defense against an aggressor of the “nation-state” type, with an interval of forty years between them. In the first part, he estimated the chances of an anarcho-USA fending off nuclear aggression from the Soviet Union and concluded that for the sake of defense against such a serious aggressor, he was willing to accept the existence of a state. In the second part, once the USSR was reliably dead, he breathed a sigh of relief and began to fantasize about how territorial defense is ensured without a state.

In my view, Friedman pays excessively much attention to the territorial aspect of the problem. For example, when he dismisses the model of financing defense through insurance, he puts the cart before the horse and assumes that clients will be tried to be sold “national defense” specifically (and that they will hope to save money, counting on their neighbor buying it). But the client does not need national defense. They need assurance that if an insured event occurs personally to them, they will receive the money. Whether they are on territory near where they bought the policy or on the other side of the planet is unimportant to them. And exactly what means the company uses to reduce its own risks of having to pay out insurance does not concern them either, as long as the company does not commit fraud.

Thus, if the organization of territorial defense truly reduces the chances of an attack by an external “state”-type aggressor, insurance companies are capable of calculating how much to invest in it to keep it profitable, and how to interact with other insurance companies to share the costs, for example, proportionally to the client base.

Friedman also presents an interesting thesis that the absence of a single jurisdiction over a certain territory is not in itself a guarantee against an aggressor’s claims. And when a conditional USSR arrives in a region where ancap reigns, it is sufficient for them to smash one city with a nuclear bomb and declare something like: look, see, Alderaan was here, it is no more. If the residents of Yavin do not wish the same fate, they owe five hundred million credits by the day after tomorrow, and we don’t care that they have neither a single administration nor taxation; if they want to live, they’ll figure it out somehow.

Effectively, he suggests that when it is too costly for a stationary bandit to expand its territory, it retains the option to act toward that territory as a nomadic bandit. Further, as you understand, everything depends on how coordinated the response will be. If a community is capable of reaching a level of coordination sufficient to pay a large tribute, it is reasonable to assume that further resistance will be coordinated at a level at least no less. This means that the second Death Star will indeed be destroyed without firing a single shot, unlike the first, which managed three.

At the same time, let us note that it is the free market that contributes to the fastest scientific and technical progress. And if, at the initial stage of ancap, states will still be able to oppose network market structures due to the difference in scale, then by the end of the transition period, the technological backwardness of states will become too obvious, and they will have to focus rather on holding onto the remnants of power over their own subjects.

Perhaps by ancap’s foreign policy you did not mean defense. But since for ancap the state is nothing more than a bandit, relations with a bandit amount to nothing more than deterring it from banditry directed at oneself, and other diplomacy is reduced precisely to this aspect. Visa regimes? That is about ensuring the bandit does not attack travelers. Customs regimes? That is about ensuring the bandit does not rob caravans. Regulatory regimes? That is about ensuring the bandit does not interfere with contracts. All these negotiations will come down to the interested party spending money on a payoff. As long as this money is less than the money required to eliminate the bandit, the latter will have a chance to survive.