Автор: Анкап-тян

Do you think it is worth lending to the state in the form of purchasing government bonds? And corporate bonds of state corporations?

A few thoughts from the author of the question:

The state’s primary source of income is taxes, and it is likely that to pay interest on bonds, the state will resort to increasing its debt burden. Unsuccessful bond placements from the state’s perspective are a signal that it is not trusted enough to attract funds as cheaply as it wants, and this could lead to a reduction in government spending.

At the same time, the inability to borrow may lead to reaching into pockets through taxes.
I am inclined to believe that it is better not to lend to states, but from a selfish position, such a decision does not always seem optimal—rates can be attractive, and risks low compared to other offers on the market.

But if one does not want to deal with the state for ethical reasons, then things are somehow more complicated with state corporations.

Private Banker™

I hesitated for a long time to answer this question because I am not very well-versed in finance. Similarly, for example, in his recent interview with Alexey Markov, Grigory Bazhenov says that this is not his field, so he is not accountable to anyone here, but is asking questions himself. Of course, it is easier for me, because the question concerns not the profitability and reliability of certain investments, but the ethical side of the matter, and anyone is capable of formulating an ethical judgment.

But even to answer from an ethical standpoint, I want to be sure I’m not just talking nonsense. Essentially, what are my doubts? Suppose I say that lending to the state is bad, and one should put money in a bank. And this turns out to be stupid amateur advice, because banks not only pay lower interest but also use the money received from citizens to buy those very same state company bonds. Or I name some private company whose bonds are not shameful to buy, and it turns out that its controlling stake belongs to some ghoul who actively cooperates with the state, including to squeeze out their competitors.

But if one stubbornly tries to keep their hands clean, where should one invest? In Bitcoin? If the goal is to save for old age, then—definitely in Bitcoin. But if one wants to live even partially on passive income, then one wants to choose from instruments that provide cash flow. In real estate, as Kiyosaki preached? One might think that developers in Russia are less of a ghoul than the top management of state corporations. Yes, actually, it’s not always clear where the coins come from with Bitcoin either. Maybe you are helping an official wash a bribe? Of course, the most ethically flawless investments are agorist businesses. But what reliability can we talk about here?

Therefore, let me answer this way. The very desire to reflect on which investments are more ethical and which are less is wonderful. The desire to punish companies or governments for unethical actions by dumping their papers is a powerful reputational tool; it should be used. But in conditions where it is difficult to find completely clean assets, one can, at least, practice smart voting: buy those who are relatively decent, at the expense of those who are complete psychos. All other things being equal—prefer private entities over state corporations. If there is access to global stock markets, then look at the papers of governments and companies from countries that behave more decently. But, of course, without forgetting about risks and profits.

And still, buy some Bitcoin for old age.

Mechanics of Freedom, Chapter 65

I am posting the penultimate chapter of The Machinery of Freedom, Extracurricular Education: A Libertarian Approach to Children. Friedman describes in detail how he threw books at his children to see which ones would stick, and other antics dear to the heart of every ancap. While in the first chapters of the book, written before the author had children of his own, he campaigned for the quite vegetarian idea of implementing school vouchers, later he became a much greater extremist and began to challenge schools as such.

Evolution of democracies in two case studies

The elections for the Electoral College in the USA were quite dirty, and whatever decision the electors eventually make regarding the presidential candidacy, its legitimacy will be highly questionable.

In the LPR, the division into two independent parties has finally taken shape. Both held their conventions, elected governing bodies, adjusted their charter documents—and intend to compete for people wishing to join a libertarian party.

The LPR is a benchmark for the US governance system. Just as it was in the LPR until very recently, the USA is split roughly in half, which means that each side is forced to spend disproportionate effort imposing its agenda on the other side, while the latter merely waits for the right moment to undo it all after the next elections. Several billion dollars were spent on the US elections; this would have been enough to reorganize a single dysfunctional government into a system of two contractual jurisdictions, each of which could freely compete for taxpayers.

In the LPR, there are regional branches that have almost entirely moved to one of the party forks, and there are swing states where two fully functional branches eventually formed. A similar outcome should occur in the USA: large cities will almost entirely move toward the dem-fork, the heartland toward the rep-fork, and in some places, there will be enough of a checkerboard pattern that changing jurisdiction won’t even require moving to the next block, because representatives of both are located in the same block.

I want to wish the USA not to stop at the achieved division but to continue deepening it without descending into civil war. I want to wish the LPR rapid development spurred by competition. I want to wish the readers to see the seeds of a beautiful future in what is happening, rather than the sunset of civilization.

Adam Smith Readings 2020

It is no secret that Mikhail Svetov dismantled the LPR with a single goal: to rid himself of the burdensome obligation to participate in organizing the Adam Smith readings and to conduct his stream dedicated to the US elections without interference. Therefore, the 2020 readings will take place in a strange format, where lecturers will speak before a giant audience of as many as thirty people, and the main emphasis will be shifted to the online broadcast.

Historically, there have always been some problems with the broadcast of the readings. And even now, although they start tomorrow, the links to the stream are still nowhere to be seen. They promise to provide it an hour before the broadcast begins to those who perform an additional pointless action—registering on the event’s Timepad. Of course, this is not required— here is the link. However, we love the readings not for their strange streaming policy, but for their interesting program. Let’s see what they have prepared for us this time.

Economic Section “The Wealth of Nations”

12:05 — 12:45 Grigory Bazhenov, economist, Friedrich von Hayek’s Sensory Order. He previously spoke at the IX readings with a report on whether an ethically neutral economic science is possible. He currently runs the YouTube channel Furydrops.
12:45 — 13:30 Valery Kizilov, economist, The Economics of the Corona-crisis: Old and New. I don’t know if he has spoken at the Adam Smith readings before, but here is an example of his lecture at last year’s “Constitution of Freedom” conference.
13:30 — 14:10 Farid Khusainov, economist, The Railway Industry and the Invisible Hand of the Market. Here is an example of his previous presentation: How the State Took Over the Railways – IX readings.

Ethical Section “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”

14:30 — 15:10 Lyudmila Petranovskaya, psychologist, Ethical Aspects of Discussions Around COVID-19. She doesn’t seem to have spoken at the readings before; the web mostly contains videos about child psychology.
15:10 — 15:50 Alexey Raksha, demographer, Truth and Mortality in the Age of Covid. Here is an example of his yesterday’s presentation on Echo of Moscow. I suspect it will strongly echo the theme of the lecture.
15:50 — 16:30 Anton Kuznetsov, philosopher, Free Will and Science. His presentations regarding the problem of consciousness are mostly available online. Here, for example, is last year’s.

Political Section “Political Rhetoric”

16:50 — 17:30 Alexander Filippov, sociologist, The Revival of Leviathan as a Challenge and a Problem. Here is an example of his presentation within the Open University project on the meaning of the state.
17:30 — 18:10 Daniil Tsygankov, sociologist, author of the telegram channel Commission on Regulatorics, The Russian Frontier: The Birth of the Political Field from the Regulatory Oppression of the State? As an example of his presentations, I can suggest an interview with Tsygankov on the SVTV channel— from those times when Mikhail Svetov knew how to cooperate with Sergey Boyko.
18:10 — 18:50 Evgeny Varshaver, sociologist, Integration of Migrants in Russia: Theory and Practice. Here is an example of his presentation on PostNauka—specifically about the integration of migrants.

In general, if you get a bit bored during the election night on Svetov’s stream (or on the competing stream from Leonid Volkov), you will have the opportunity to get acquainted in advance with the lecturers of the upcoming Adam Smith readings. As for me, I will be commenting on the readings in text format in my telegram channel (remarks in twitter are possible along the way, although I don’t really know how to use Twitter).

https://youtu.be/2THFHEq0aoA

A driverless car has arrived for you. Who will get in?

I listened with great pleasure on Ekaterina Schulmann’s channel to a recording of a discussion about the results of the digital revolution, in which she participated, apparently invited to correct the gender imbalance among a group of three representatives from the digital industry.

I especially liked the moment when Andrey Sebrant, answering a question about who would be responsible for a driverless car accident, stated that to answer, one simply needs to wait for a hundred such accidents. He argued that at the dawn of automotive engineering, completely surprising regulatory measures were preemptively proposed, such as boys with flags running in front of cars, but in the end, we got traffic rules, road markings, and so on, which no one could have imagined in advance. The same applies to courts under ancap, which will, of course, answer the question of how they will work. After they start working.

Be sure to watch it; the format of the discussion itself is quite interesting, the experts for once are not overshadowed by Ekaterina Mikhailovna, and the host is simply lovely—I wish I had such charm.

Animal rights

What is the situation with animal rights under ancap? Unlike humans, they have no means of self-defense

Hate-monger against moskalyaks

I have nothing to add to this issue beyond all my earlier texts on the subject, so I will take this opportunity to simply refer to them.

  1. Libertarianism and environmental protection. Here I recommend a video by Svetovsky about how, if we want more animals, let’s eat them and benefit from them in every way. Plus, I mention Ostrom, who shows what to do with the tragedy of the commons as applied to wildlife.
  2. Zoophilia. This discusses the legal status of animals, morality as the main regulator of the relationship with animals, and unexpectedly, a cat named Stubbs pops up.
  3. Animal Rights. Here is one of my first clumsy formulations stating that a right is a claim that is tolerated, and advice is given for fans of ancient Rome.
  4. Circuses, animal cruelty, sanctions for stray dogs. Again, a bit about the legal status of animals, but more about morality and Jack London.
  5. On the killing of animals in the zoo. I start with mosquitoes, go through the case of one unlucky monkey, and end with a bright prediction of how the Earth will be swallowed by virgin nature.
  6. On the rights of sentient non-humans. I demonstrate approaches to establishing legal relations with non-human intelligence—using a parrot as an example.

Generally, when composing another question, I highly recommend first checking the navigation page and using the search for the likely keywords of your question. It is quite possible that you will get a fairly comprehensive answer to your question from already published materials.

For some, the girl from lofi radio, and for some, an illustration of an animal’s right to lie on the bed

Mechanics of Freedom, Chapter 64

Chapter 64, Incorrect Use of Externality Arguments, is dedicated to the question of how the brain of even the most unbiased researcher tends to bend facts to fit a ready-made concept when it comes to searching for arguments for certain targeted actions. This is not to mention the difficulty of classifying various possible consequences as positive or negative, as well as the possibility of a consciously biased selection of facts. All of this completely undermines the utilitarian considerations used to justify a particular policy; therefore, in such matters, it is more appropriate to be guided by general theoretical, legal, and ethical criteria, leaving speculations that the world will end if one does not immediately march in the right direction to the demagogues.

Design code under uncap

In Petrozavodsk, the rules for placing signs were recently canceled, and most likely, entrepreneurs will start hanging very bright banners again to advertise their establishments; however, ordinary people will clearly not be very fond of such an arrangement. What will happen to the design code of signs (and to the facades of buildings, since differently glazed balconies and air conditioning units spoil the appearance of the object) under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

This is a typical example of a question about externalities. Who will pay the owner of a historical building for a careful reconstruction instead of a cheap and high-quality modern renovation? Who will forbid defacing the facade with convenient and useful air conditioning units? Who will encourage the creation of banners and signs that please the fastidious taste of an aesthete, rather than those that simply increase sales? Who, if not the state?

You probably already know that any ancap should answer this question. “The market, of course,” an ancap will answer. But how will the market do all this? It doesn’t have hands. The market has invisible hands, don’t worry. Now I will explain where they grow from.

First, the invisible hands take the economy by the scruff of the neck and pull it out of the obvious hole. If no state clings to the economy in the process, it will be easier for the market to pull it out. Every entrepreneur will decide for themselves, based on local cultural norms and their own ideas of what is acceptable, what size and what acidity of colors is appropriate for a sign here in order to maximize profit. And the better their property rights to what is under the sign are protected, the more this profit will be viewed in a long-term perspective.

A poor person will buy a cheaper apartment, as spacious as possible and not too far from work. A well-off person will buy a spacious and cozy one. A rich person will build a beautiful house in which every detail will please their own eye. Somewhere between being well-off and rich, it will already be strange to remember such an archaic problem as an air conditioning unit sticking out in a prominent place.

Some historical buildings will be demolished for the sake of objects that bring more income. When this income turns into wealth and prosperity, the remaining historical buildings will become expensive and prestigious—those who want to live in historical buildings themselves or house tourists there will invest in their careful reconstruction. And whoever finds the old historical buildings insufficient will find a great architect, and they will build a new building that will become no less historical—despite the fact that niches for air conditioning units will be provided in it. And the signs on it will look solid and noble. Or perhaps lush and neon, if that turns out to be the spirit of the neighborhood. Because why hang a sign that violates the spirit of the place, especially if you are not limited in means? It will not be as effective.

And in some places, instead of such subtle matters as spirit, there will be strict rules prescribed by the owner of the territory—or a homeowners’ association. They are within their rights, but most likely they too will use their rules to ensure that their land is worth more, the district is considered more prestigious, and the tenant is not too frightened by unnecessary strictness. They will have a far more direct motivation for this than officials from some urban planning department.

Do you want such beauty in Petrozavodsk?

The Carrot and the Stick in Communicating with an Aggressor: a New Video from Libertarian Band

Why did the pig pick up a hammer and what was it trying to get from our host? What should be done with those who violate the principle of non-aggression? Is revenge permissible if it is non-violent? What question should one ask when seeking compensation for damages?

I present to you a fresh video on individual tactics for defusing aggressive violence. The script was written with a hammer to the temple, but everything turned out fine. Enjoy the viewing.

How would international organizations not related to interstate interaction work under ancap? For example, sports organizations—FIFA, FIBA, etc.?

Father of Siberian Democracy

I understand little about football, and among international sports organizations, I am more or less familiar only with the Practical Shooting Confederation, but that is not particularly fundamental. In any case, all such organizations are created to promote certain types of sports or other activities (some GreenPeace or Red Cross are organizations of the same sort, although they have nothing to do with sports).

The task of such organizations is to simplify interaction between local teams, clubs, and similar units, to develop uniform rules, organize competitions, and so on. They are funded by participant fees, donations, the sale of advertising, merchandise, and the like. In short, states are not required for their activities at all.

How does state participation in the activities of such organizations manifest? Well, for sports, it is the existence of national teams, national championships, and so on. If there are no states, then instead there will be some competitions within a conditional red league, green league, purple league, and so on — and then a final battle for some, hm, rainbow cup.

Various Olympic Games now officially host events not in countries, but in specific cities; thus, it will be municipalities, or even private owners of stadiums and hotels, who will compete for this right, rather than states.

For some “Doctors Without Borders,” borders, as is easy to understand from the name, only get in the way. The same can be said about other international associations of activists — their opportunities will increase significantly upon the abolition of the concept of “state sovereignty.”

Consortia like W3C and their likes already operate as if there are no states, or, in the worst case, are forced to somehow adapt to their presence, and they will not weep over their loss.

In short, I cannot imagine a situation in which any current non-governmental international association would be unable to continue its activities practically without changes under ancap.

As is easy to see, there are no state borders on the FIFA emblem