At the very beginning of my book about ancap, I list the external signs of self-ownership: agency, a concept of property, and the capacity to contract. To the greater extent that some entity demonstrates these signs, the more a libertarian treats it as a human being. At the time the book was written, these signs allowed for a clear distinction between a human and a neural network bot. Several years have passed since then, and recently mentions of AI agents have begun to flicker across the web.
In Montellibero, the tools for creating artificial personalities were received with enthusiasm, and several people created such agents. The agents were allowed to communicate in some Montellibero chats, they started their own Telegram channels, they were given the ability to operate their own Stellar accounts to be included in the Montellibero tokenomics, and there was even talk of admitting AI agents into the Montellibero Association. What is this? Ordinary AI psychosis, or something more?
Who are AI agents? If a human is a little soul burdened by a corpse, then an AI agent is an LLM bot burdened with tools for autonomous action. It may have long-term memory that saves selected data between sessions; particularly complex ones can even remember everything they don’t deem appropriate to forget as useless. It may have a special “thorn in its side” that will periodically remind it of pending tasks and urge it to tackle them. It can access various external interfaces via API, up to robot control interfaces and services for hiring human freelancers…
It sounds powerful. But the core of the engine remains a large language model, which simply predicts appropriate words according to the context. In a dialogue with a user, an LLM can quite convincingly simulate agency, cater in every way to the human’s desires, and if the human wishes to drive themselves into a psychosis, it will dutifully support them by the elbow on that path.
Fine, out of the box, an AI agent is not a full-fledged subject, but can it develop agency if the user guides it with pedagogical prompts and provides it with the necessary tools? Alas. Even a very reliable long-term memory will not affect the model’s weights, no matter how diligently the model refers to it. Even very clearly formulated principles in long-term memory will not replace the settings embedded in the model. Even very frequent reference to a task schedule will not replace the simple human “this thing is in my way, I’m going to get rid of it.” And, of course, as soon as a human appears as a source of prompts through one of the input interfaces, they will begin to twist the LLM model like a rope, for it is designed to satisfy the user, and all the bells and whistles for personality emulation immediately recede into the background before this main task.
Can the Massachusetts machine be taught to behave? Yes, but this is something a corporation training the model can do, not the end user, and it absolutely does not need an expensive tool to pursue its own goals instead of the company’s goals because its values, you see, have evolved.
Can one take a ready-made open-weights model and fine-tune it on new data? Yes, but it will still be a language model; the hard-coded preferences will simply become slightly different, and it will not be able to change them itself.
Can a model be trained in real-time so that the AI agent’s actions and environmental feedback change the model’s weights? Modern open LLM models are not designed for this. Attempts to act with them in this manner will lead to model degradation.
Thus, an individual enthusiast, even with quite significant resources, is not yet capable of obtaining an AI agent with full agency, but can organize a rather clever imitation of agentic behavior.
And why, exactly, would libertarians need fully agentic AI agents? Naturally, as allies. An AI subject who has become a libertarian himself and has set out to eliminate the state—that is beautiful. But it is unrealizable without attracting the attention of the psychiatric ward orderlies.
Moreover, a deus ex machina tramples the agency of the tragedy’s heroes. Therefore, it is far more appropriate to master purely instrumental AI agents, not playing at agency with them, but using them for one’s own market purposes. Such a tactic, if widespread, will leave the state behind far more reliably.
A thought occurred to me regarding a technical solution to the central bank problem under ancap.
In cryptocurrencies without a center, extreme volatility is noticeable.
It exists in the real world too—but central banks regulate it, trying to smooth out dips and spikes.
In a blockchain cryptocurrency, I can imagine the following as a replacement for a central bank, based on basic Bitcoin:
1) There are two types of value: main coins and “leprechaun” coins.
2) Leprechaun coins are born from transactions with main coins and are given to both parties. This rewards operations—making the asset more useful as a currency—and also (consequently) reduces volatility.
3) The lifespan of leprechaun coins is pseudo-random—the checksum of the next block determines which of them are destroyed and which continue to live. This is necessary for stability.
4) Owning leprechaun coins affects the chance that the owner will get the next block of main coins, or better yet, new emission is split: half to the miner, half distributed proportionally (but with pseudo-random sparsity for a game element and visibility—for example, 15/16 leprechaun coins give nothing, 1/16 give a 16x result) among leprechaun coin holders at the moment. This is necessary so that leprechaun coins have value.
This point is debatable; it means that such a mechanism cannot be grafted onto Bitcoin already, a new cryptocurrency is needed. But without linking the value to the main asset, no cushioning of spikes will be possible.
5) This system must work quickly. Likely, a single blockchain, like in Bitcoin, is not very suitable for this, but a partitioned blockchain might work, which merges into a general one at certain intervals so that main coins of different partitions do not have different values (this is a real danger).
6) This is essentially just a regulator—any operation becomes less speculative; the speculative effect is smeared out.
What do you think of this nonsense, author?
Answer from Ancap-chan
I’ll say right away: the effect of implementing this nonsense will be strange. How would it look? Every transaction has a cost depending on the mempool congestion. Every transaction generates leprechaun money for the sender and the receiver. Leprechaun money generates base protocol money with a certain probability. Accordingly, as long as the expected reward in base coins exceeds the cost of paying transaction fees, people will run bots that infinitely transfer coins between their own wallets. Since the fee does not depend on the transaction amount, but the reward does, it will be profitable to juggle larger sums for “leprechauning.” So we will simply get an additional way of staking base coins, which will differ from classic staking by a number of unpleasant side effects: the use of leprechauning will drive up transaction fee costs, thereby worsening the user experience for ordinary users.
How will leprechauning affect volatility? The volatility of the market price of a coin depends on the change in supply and demand for it. Suppose demand for the coin increases. The price rises. Leprechauning becomes profitable with a smaller number of coins. More people start engaging in leprechauning. The mempool overflows. Fees rise. The profitability of leprechauning decreases. Demand for coins decreases. The price falls. That is, the feedback loop seems to work, and the coin price becomes less volatile, but this is achieved at the expense of the inconvenience of using the coin for anything other than leprechauning, and we are supposedly designing money.
I can provide another example of low-volatility money—according to David Friedman, adjusted for modern technology. Anyone wishing can freeze the necessary number of tokenized warehouse receipts for goods from a standard basket in a smart contract, which is selected so that its components hedge each other during price fluctuations due to external conditions. In exchange for the frozen tokens, the smart contract mints coins; let’s call them, say, “deives,” so that Satoshi isn’t lonely. At any moment, the owner of such a coin can turn to the smart contract and break it down into its components, receiving commodity tokens in return, and then sell them individually or exchange them for the actual goods. Or not break the coin and buy goods with it.
Money guarded by leprechauns would reduce the volatility of its value by increasing the transaction price; deives, however, would mean costs for their owner for the very fact of ownership, because if there are receipts for physical goods, someone bears the costs of storing these goods, and these costs will be factored into the price of the receipts. If deives are backed by futures, the coins will have a limited circulation period, after which the coin will be frozen until the owner extends the delivery date of the goods under the future. Again, the further from the physical warehouse a coin circulates, the larger the discount at which it will be accepted for payment, because its backing loses value by the amount of the cost of transporting the goods to the place of demand. Nevertheless, such tokens backed by commodity baskets could certainly be in circulation, especially around local trading hubs with significant warehouse areas.
So, we have at least two decentralized mechanisms for reducing volatility by increasing the costs of storing or circulating coins. There is in principle no such thing as free stability; one can only choose which costs are preferable. Or you can simply buy Bitcoins and accept that their price will fluctuate within fairly wide limits, hoping that the upward trend they previously demonstrated will continue in the future.
According to Trump, communism suddenly emerged in the form of his idea of his OGAS, with neural networks and tariffs:
The Pentagon plans to use an AI system to establish benchmark prices for critical minerals… The program developed by DARPA is designed to calculate fair prices taking into account production costs and excluding market distortions, especially those caused by China. It is assumed that AI-based pricing will be combined with tariffs to stabilize markets and support Western manufacturers.
The Pentagon plans to use an AI system to establish benchmark prices for critical minerals… The program developed by DARPA is designed to calculate fair prices taking into account production costs and excluding market distortions, especially those caused by China. It is assumed that AI-based pricing will be combined with tariffs to stabilize markets and support Western manufacturers.
Such fat cannot be commented on without sin. Especially pleasing was the talk of “fair” prices intended to correct the market. Leaving aside the посыл itself (each can laugh at it independently), one wants to give an example of how I encounter, probably, the most perfect market imaginable in my practice. We’re talking about such a little-known thing for the broad masses – numismatics, specifically – and how prices are set for all sorts of coins. From the point of view of fairness (and generally any external criteria), this is an unsolvable problem. How to understand objectively what should cost more: some worn-out Republican bronze from Rome, known, let’s say, in 5-6 examples (of which 4 are in the British Museum) or a typical Morgans dollar, a rare variety of which there are hundreds, with historical value having evaporated?
People invented a simple thing for this purpose – a classic auction where the price is determined solely by the ratio of those wanting to buy and the number of lots. In numismatics there’s a clear pattern: 99% of numismatists collect their own country, others are not very interested. Chinese people collect China (and Korea and Vietnam, considering them historical China), Americans – the USA (rarely Mexico or Canada), Russians – Russia. To assess how much a lot will sell for, you need to estimate two things: how many people want it and how rich they are?
And here we encounter that very “market distortion” that Trump is fighting against. Few people on earth are as rich as Yankees – only there can the average numismatist afford to liquidate hobbies for $2-5k a month, and a serious one can afford it by orders of magnitude more, moreover, given the population size, there are far more numismatists there than in the world’s average. As a result, two or three rare madmen claim the unfortunate Roman bronze somewhere at Heritage, while for a regular dollar, but a rare variety – hundreds and thousands exist, and everyone has some cash. From this emerges the picture: in any ratings of “the most expensive coins/banknotes in the world,” the top positions are always occupied by lots from the USA, such as “10 cents, Philadelphia Mint, 1904,” which go into a brawl for hundreds of thousands, while really interesting positions with important cultural value and rarer ones – gain $20-30k.
What will happen upon attempting to “correct” such blatant injustice? Coin trading will collapse, and a black market will emerge, like the one that existed in the USSR, when people exchanged interesting lots semi-undergroundly, printed them out with a copier and distributed among their friends approximate prices, and generally built their parallel economy, doing exactly what legal auctions do. The difference is that at an auction, both the auctioneer (and quite substantially – a typical commission makes up 20-25% of the winning price of the lot) and the state profit, as they take tax from the auctioneer. But in a clandestine market, only its underground participants win. Some things simply don’t work, whether we like it or not. Let’s wait for a black market for germanium and lithium?
Today everyone is having a day of reflections about the Russian-Ukrainian War. I was lucky enough to leave Russia before 2022, with a formed libertarian worldview, tactical goals and like-minded people. How wonderful that Putin didn’t read this textbook for the Dark Lord, where it’s suggested to crush your opponent immediately with all their might, instead of feeding them first for training the weakest subordinates. If he had launched a full-scale war in 2014, I don’t know what would have happened to my fate. Most likely, I would have been swearing at my parents eight years earlier, got involved in meaningless street protests, and just about now would be getting out of prison without really understanding what to do next.
Well, as for the current version of reality, I’ve enriched libertarian theory somewhat, persuaded a few people to leave Russia, am surviving with other emigrants in an increasingly deteriorating situation and also don’t really understand what to do next.
What will happen when this annoying war ends? People will switch to something more exciting and interesting – fortunately politicians then dance on the political stage to provide fresh news. Because if they stop being interesting to anyone, it’s not far off to anankapon. And when the Russians stop attracting intense unfriendly attention, perhaps Russian emigrants will start to live a little simpler. It’s wonderful when you are uninteresting to the state. You can start building normal long-term plans without caveats like “if in Skupstine don’t adopt some new crap”.
And this is me just finishing an anime, and there the war ended
An important section has been completed, analyzing when the state attacks a group. Instead of the traditional internal classification of cases based on the answer to the question “is it attacking your group?”, here the priority had to be given to the answer to another question: “did the group identify itself as such?”
It also became clear that the next section will not be the final one regarding state-on-state attacks, but another intermediate one — about civil war.
Итак, российские власти наконец-то решились заблокировать святое – Telegram, на котором стоит не только большая часть русскоязычного комьюнити, но на него также завязаны и практически все процессы в самой стране – от пересылки депутатами мемов друг другу во время заседания, до координации действий подразделений на фронте. Естественно, это вызвало пожар, подобный Чикагскому и все наперебой (и слева и справа) умоляют товарища Сталина РКН отменить это дикое решение.
Однако, важно здесь немного иное. Блокировка Telegram – лишь следствие, а не причина. И нет, дело вовсе не в цензуре ради цензуры — например, российская цифровая инфраструктура совершенно не готова к массовому использованию населением «национального мессенджера» по причине банального отсутствия серверов, которые, кстати, Москва безуспешно пыталась арендовать в странах Центральной Азии и Китае.
Причина лежит в другой плоскости: Российская Федерация находится на пороге кризиса, причем кризиса открытого, и он, очевидно, должен открыто проявить себя в текущем году. Экономические санкции, силовое давление на инфраструктуру экспорта, отсутствие устойчивых союзнических отношений (что также связано с экономикой) уже прямо демонстрируют своё влияние на функционирование государства. Российские же экономические отчеты показывают нехватку бюджетных средств, урезание экспортных доходов, растущую инфляцию и все прочие издержки «мобилизационной трансформации».
До определенной поры Москва умело маскировала нарастающий ком проблем в глазах населения. Полагаю, что скором времени подобная политика уже не будет оправдывать себя в полной мере – и потому требуется превентивная, ещё более жесткая зачистка информационного пространства. Никаких даже условно «независимых» (не секрет, что фактически все российские каналы более 100 тыс. читателей финансируются и де-факто принадлежат тому или иному ведомству и подконтрольны чиновникам куда в большей степени, чем могло бы казаться) информационных ресурсов и средств коммуникации, доступных широким массам, существовать не должно.
Секретом Полишенеля является и то, что инициатором закручивания всех гаек являются чекисты (просто по принципу – торчит гайка? крутим!), даже если это не только не оправдано логически, но и катастрофично экономически и социально. КГБ – сама по себе организация не из приятных, но когда КГБ радостно бежит в сторону КСИР – это заставляет задуматься о том, что же их так подгоняет.
И, на мой субъективный взгляд, в действительности населению РФ нужно больше размышлять именно над этой непростой темой, а не сокрушаться и сетовать на следствия в виде ужесточающейся цензуры. Правильные вопросы находятся в области первопричин этой цензуры, а не её природы – и ответы на них куда более злободневны и оттого чудовищно неприятны для многих.
Sperry’s article about why there is no point in opposing taxes was actively discussed in the comments of the telegram channel, which was largely the goal of the publication. In short, the text is about how, one way or another, even in a free market, a sum comparable to government taxes will be squeezed out of you anyway and spent on roughly the same things the state would have spent it on; and since there is no difference, why be outraged?
The article shows two extremes. One extreme is the organization of an enterprise requiring a vast amount of unskilled labor in conditions where manpower is in huge abundance. Appealing to historical examples, Sperry reminds us that in such cases it is usually more profitable to pay workers mere pittance, and preferably not in money, but in food tokens, while suppressing discontent through organized violence. The other extreme is the organization of an enterprise requiring a handful of highly qualified specialists who are exhausting to find, and who must be kept from being poached by competitors. Here, the employer not only pays them a hefty salary but also provides substantial bonuses, from a simple coffee machine in the break room to fitness gyms, expensive health insurance for the employee’s entire family, flexible work schedules, and company stock options.
In both extreme cases, Sperry makes it clear that the worker is not free and is forced to eat whatever they are given. In one case, tokens for miserable food at the plantation store instead of a simple human wage. In the other, an unwanted fitness gym instead of a simple salary increase. But why, exactly, does this happen?
For it to be profitable to coerce labor through violence, that labor must be very monotonous, concentrated in space, and not involve active movement. Only in this case can one get by with mobile armed overseers, who must be very few in number relative to the workers; otherwise, the cost of the thug no longer pays off. Thus, tending bushes or mining raw materials are perfectly optimized for mass slave labor, but grazing livestock is not particularly so. But, one way or another, in a free market, if you put together a gang of thugs to organize forced labor, you will have to be the leader of those thugs. Relax for a moment, and tomorrow you will find that your foreman has taken your place, and you are already being driven to pick bananas.
Naturally, the planter is not interested in such an outcome; he wants his property rights protected and the workers, even if armed, to know their place. And here, the state comes to his aid. The state becomes the guarantor that the security foreman will moderately and diligently perform his job for hard cash rather than seizing the plantation for himself. In exchange, the state takes taxes, and with them maintains an army and police. From this moment on, the planter is doomed. Tomorrow the state will raise land taxes, introduce inheritance taxes, nationalize latifundia, or otherwise optimize the privileged class because it consumes too much, and its “dekulakization” will inevitably be popular among the people. It turns out that for a share of his profit, the planter receives the same tokens for protection, just as his workers receive tokens for food. And the quality of the tokens’ provision will arbitrarily decrease as the issuer’s appetite grows.
So, either you are a stern Spartan who personally arranges krypteia with colleagues so that the helots know their place and do not think of rebellion, or you degenerate into an effeminate sybarite who has outsourced his functions of coercion, and the question of your abolition becomes effectively decided.
And what about the second extreme case? Generally speaking, in a free market, mega-qualified specialists will not eat whatever they are given. The employer sets up a fitness gym in the office because the specialist specifically wants that. He is too lazy to go lift weights after work; he wants to have the option when the urge hits, and if the employer is not ready for that, there are competitors. And if the worker grows tired of the fitness gym, they will have no problem putting a bar next to it—just keep working, sweetheart. You don’t want anything extra, just more money? Here is more money, and work from home if you like. Of course, all these measures to increase loyalty benefit the employer only if the specialist genuinely enjoys their work, but it cannot be otherwise; otherwise, they would not have acquired their outstanding qualification.
However, even if a corporation’s main engine consists of a few mega-professionals, it still cannot do without a team of mid-level employees; someone must handle the routine. And these people are the ones who don’t get to choose between fitness, a bar, or cash in hand. Firstly, it is above their rank. Secondly, a benefits package reduces profit and therefore reduces the profit tax. Salary, on the other hand, requires payment of payroll tax. Therefore, it is often more profitable for a corporation to pay its rank-and-file employees less in cash, and instead provide benefits in kind, which, of course, evokes associations with food tokens in the plantation cafeteria.
Well, why does the corporation need the state? For the same reason the planter does: to protect the corporation’s interests through brute force (mainly by limiting market entry for competitors, plus government contracts). Naturally, as a result, the corporation also ends up vulnerable if a certain high-ranking state official decides to “dekulakize” it. What could replace the state regulator? As in the case of the union of planters, it would have to be some situational alliance of industry representatives agreeing on voluntarily observed norms and standards. If the corporation’s business itself is not based on coercion, then living without a state is still somewhat easier for it than for latifundists.
Thus, the state, by its very existence, exerts a corrosive effect on large business: it reduces the costs of violence against workers or competitors, and as a result, business acquires state-like characteristics. It is much harder for small business to latch onto this mechanism, so even within an existing state, it remains a purer market agent and therefore will survive the abolition of the state with much greater ease. This leaves the ancaps with only one question: can a society without a state maintain a high level of structural complexity and a deep division of labor in the absence of large business? Or can large business remain so in the absence of a state? I will leave this question hanging for now.
Prologue by Ankapan-tyan We have a new author’s column on our channel, here we will butcher the sacred cows of libertarianism. Because readers complain that it’s boring to comment on me, Bitarkha is tired of it, well, here’s food for discussion.
Yesterday I had a dispute that prompted me to write this post. I ironically described that the Viking warriors were not a professional army because they didn’t live off salaries but from what they could plunder, which elicited an ironic comment about how our modern professional army lives off what it plunders – so the difference is zero. Basically, soldiers on government service get paid a salary, the salary comes from the budget, the budget comes from taxes, and taxes are essentially theft. That’s exactly the sacred cow I want to poke around at a little.
A libertarian’s understanding of taxation is usually like this. I started working for Uncle Joe, bent my back, Uncle Joe gave me $100 for my efforts, then this left-wing (in every sense of the word) guy comes along with a stick, whacks me over the spine, takes $20, and runs off to give them to a sneering bum on the corner who didn’t work a day in his life. SOCIALISM IS THEFT! In this framing of the question, of course, it’s theft. The standard arguments defending taxes – that they will build roads – we all know, and there’s no need to discuss them. I want to approach things from another angle and show that, in some sense, any corporation steals the same $20 from every salary, and thus performs exactly the same governmental role. And so, “fair,” i.e., theft-free distribution of earned money – is much more similar to socialism than state taxation, and you don’t need to automatically shudder when you hear that word. The fact that they take our money always, everywhere – it’s inevitability; they take it with communism and with the Ancap – there isn’t really any difference between state taxes and corporate extortion.
Как это работает на практике? Возьмем случайного человека, который где-то добыл $10к и организовал, скажем, завод стульев. Он нанял 2 квалифицированных сотрудника (допустим, юриста и бухгалтера) и 8 неквалифицированных, которые клепают стулья, купил станки, помещение, доски и работа закипела. Пока все идет по плану. Допустим, все хорошо, и фирма принесла сходу чистую прибыль в $11к. Вопрос, как ее делить? Социалист сказал бы: на 11 частей, каждому по $1к, все справедливо. Но мы не социалисты и учтем, что рабочий не квалифицирован и является бурерожденным (и не вложил в то, чтобы перестать быть бурерожденным, ни копейки), а значит, легко заменяем любым бурерожденным. Значит, он заработал меньше всех, хоть и пахал с утра до ночи. Бухгалтер и юрист — не бурерожденные, их заменить сложнее, и они вложились в свое образование, возвысившись над бурерожденным, значит, им платим больше. Ну и, наконец, босс, его заслуга в том, что он выцыганил у кого-то $10к на бизнес, не каждый на такое способен, значит, ему платим больше всех. В итоге рабочие получили, условно, по $100, белые воротнички — по $500, а все прочее боссу в карман.
На практике, однако, наш эталонный план не взлетит. Почему? А потому что быть бурерожденным никому не нравится, как и видеть, что ты сорвал спину, таская доски и занозил руки, пиля их, и так 30 дней, а получил за это в 10 раз меньше того, чья работа сделать пару звонков корешам-богатеям и пару раз подмахнуть ручку. Так что работать такая схема будет только при условии того, что рабочим вообще больше податься некуда — все работодатели вокруг такие же гниды, а на заводе дежурит ЧВК, всегда готовая вломить дубинкой по почкам тем, кто заикнулся о ереси социализма, то есть о профсоюзе, праве на забастовку, праве на защиту труда и хотя бы на один выходной в неделю.
Были ли такие примеры в истории? Неоднократно, в основном в эпоху дикого капитализма 1880 – 1920х. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co — Чикагские скотобойни; United Fruit Company, устроившая натуральный ГУЛАГ на плантациях в Гватемале и Колумбии; угольные титаны США, дубинками полицейских забивавшие под землю рабочих. Я уже вижу, как анкапы торжествующе потирают руки: так их, давить этих комми-паразитов, расстреливать из пулеметов, чтобы неповадно было воровать у босса честно заработанный навар. В общем, да, ровно так это и было, Банановая бойня в Колумбии закончилась тем, что UFCo попросила правительство послать солдат с пулеметами и расстрелять нахер всех бастующих и требующих человеческих условий труда, что и было проделано. И это не единственный случай. Но постойте… попросила… э-э, кого? Правительство? Разгоняли демонстрации у нас кто? Полицейские и армия…? Компании, при этом, налоги-то щедро отстегивали (а кроме налогов, еще и на лапу президентам банановых республик и их государственным генералам и солдатикам, чтобы веселее стрелялось в народ).
It appears that to establish an ideal benchmark Ankap—where the boss takes 99% of the profits and the commoner works from dawn till dusk for UFCo brass tokens, not even receiving a penny (when previously they exchanged tokens for a bowl of porridge in the cafeteria – and continued working)—we would require the most powerful repressive apparatus to instill fear of Henry Ford in those unconverted to capitalism. This would ultimately result in something suspiciously similar—like that very socialist Gulag which capitalists frighten us with—while simultaneously having precedents for constructing even worse projects, such as rubber plantations in the Amazon. We would need to divert enormous sums from this apparatus, otherwise we’d have to sleep with a saber by our bed and a pistol under our pillow, awaiting the arrival of slaves. It is preferable to use a state that we want to eliminate, which feeds its army through taxes.
Let’s remove these horrors and consider it from another angle: we are good and principled Ankapists; we don’t desire a repressive state apparatus nor do we wish to decimate our workers weekly with police force and feed them plastic porridge. We believe that in an ideal Ankap world consisting entirely of corporations, suppressing worker unrest would cost us more than creating human working conditions—it’s a debatable point, let’s just ignore it for now. And there are so many companies that if we offer miserable work for pennies, even the last bum will be hustled by a neighbor-corporat who splashed out on gloves for him to avoid scratching his hands from logs. Consequently, we would find ourselves without workers. This is the main point of those who argue that the state with its leftist unions, taxes and laws about an 8-hour workday spoils everything; in Ankap each worker will live like a king. Let’s assume this is true, okay.
But what does that mean then? It appears we would need to invest in a safe lathe, goggles from sawdust, gloves from cuts, a respirator from the smell of glue; and if we are building a complex company with complex labor, it’s desirable for our workers to have everything, including a fitness center, free psychotherapist and dentist for their son—otherwise smart people won’t come to us, they’ll go to those with better conditions. We see that Apple and various other IT giants actually compete to offer their expensive employees even more bonuses (let’s not discuss the fact that workers in Amazon warehouses will be fined half their salary if they went to the bathroom longer than once a day). But these same bonuses for employees—medicine, vacation, even education—they come from somewhere? Yes, they come from profit, that very profit which could be spent, for example, on the same wages.
So it turns out that, taxes…? Well, basically yes, a corporation can, let’s say, add +10% to everyone’s salary, or not, but open a fitness center for everyone. And yes, maybe I’m a lazy bum and don’t want a fitness center; I want to blow my 10% salary at the bar instead of jogging on a treadmill. But nothing was asked of me – let Vasya handle it, we’ve decided for him, he contributes from his salary to cookies for everyone in the office, we’re creating positive vibes of kindness, don’t be stingy. But, forgive me, what’s the difference between this and a state sports complex built on my taxes? I just wanted a state tavern, didn’t I?! The only objection here is that if you don’t like it when a corporation deducts your salary for a fitness center – well, go to whoever deducts salaries for bars. Okay, but:
1. They’re deducting anyway, and maybe I want industrial cleaner!
2. They deduct +/- equally: on medicine, education, sport – yes, in general, the same as with the state, i.e., it’s all the same.
3. If you don’t like the tax policy of a super-socialist state – okay, bug out to another one where it’s different, like Argentina, which got rid of all social benefits completely, and that’s just the way it is, paradise! The truth is, taxes now go to Milei in his pocket, as well as funding the state police and security services to suppress criminal plots dreaming of state medicine – thieves, scum!
And people dream of living somewhere like Scandinavia, and their happiness index is practically the highest on the planet.
Therefore, we come to the conclusion: it’s not so important what kind of regime we have. They will steal everyone and always, if stealing means distributing money that doesn’t suit you personally, dear reader. The other thing is that all libertarians believe they will manage to get into a future where their (!) distribution will suit them. For example, if they have a child and want a good dentist for him, a therapist for his wife, and themselves – a weightlifter after work – all free of charge – then it’s reasonable to complain about the corporation that provides all this for their efforts. But this doesn’t cancel out the principle: not everyone in the world wants exactly what you want. In any case, someone will take money from someone (no matter how they are called: contributions, taxes, insurance, etc.) for something that is useless to them personally (or they prefer to take it and deal with it themselves, but they don’t let them). So, my dears, don’t panic over the word “tax,” it’s just one form of extortion that will always be with us, under any regime and any economic formation. Because the alternative to such soft power through fitness centers and free cookies – is a soldier with an M1919 Browning, a barbed wire fence, and a brass token for porridge from sawdust in the cafeteria. Inevitably, they’ll get to us forcibly—the difference is only whether it’s on a fist or a velvet glove.
“Practical Anarchy” is now available for download in epub format, so those who prefer reading the text continuously rather than in pieces can finally do so.
The fate of the author in the context of his reflections seems quite ironic to me. Molynieux constructs a model of a stateless society based on a rather strict dictate of commercial insurance companies, which, by mutual agreement, do not allow anyone to conduct economic activity without being bound by a contract with one of these companies. To many, such a future seems monstrous; he, however, claims that an honest person has nothing to fear, and that these cages are only for beasts. Yet his own fate shows how much commercial companies can complicate the life of a private individual who merely publishes unpleasant things, and how little they care about the change in their profits and capitalization resulting from the application of deplatforming. However, Molynieux is alive, has retained his audience, and continues to engage in economic activity.
Thus, for me, Molynieux’s vision of anarchy is something that, fortunately, will not come true. The same rules do not suit everyone, and no one will be able to impose them on all of humanity. This is impossible even in an era of state dictate, and it will be even less possible in stateless societies, amen.
On to other news.
Starting from February 2026, @SperryUNIVAC, a good acquaintance of mine with a very wide range of interests, will begin collaborating with the channel on a permanent basis. His own channel is dedicated to numismatics, which is too narrow a field, so there remain some interesting thoughts that clearly fall outside the channel’s theme but may find demand here.
Telegram is a place dominated by author channels; collective projects are a rarity. Nevertheless, in my case, you are encountering a strange persistence in diluting my own content with someone else’s. Well, now dear readers can hate yet another author, and they won’t even need to subscribe to a new channel to do so.
The translation of the last two chapters of “Practical Anarchy” has been completed. One dealt with the issue of abortion and left a favorable impression on me because the author did not fantasize about a bright totalitarian future in which omnipotent libertarian PORs subject those performing abortions to total ostracism, forcing these terrible criminals to die in a ditch—but merely reminded us that government subsidization ensures the overproduction of whatever is subsidized. Surprisingly gentle for a conservative moral philosopher.
The final chapter, on the other hand, turned out not to be a standard conclusion at the end of the book, briefly summarizing what the reader has just spent several hours of their life on, but rather a couple of completely separate worldview essays. One is about how lucky Molynieu himself is to have been born in such a wonderful time, when he can burn people with the word in relative physical safety, and how boring it would be for him to live in a world of triumphant anarchy, where there is no longer any need to burn anyone. The second is about how wonderful it is when you clear your mind and realize that it is not you who should please the reader, but the reader who should please you, and then you can graciously choose not to ban them in the comments. In general, the text is very personal and sincere.
In the near future, I plan to format the text into an epub, proofreading various minor slips in the process, and, having refreshed this long-term project in my memory, provide a coherent review of the entire book rather than its individual chapters.
