Автор: Анкап-тян

The (In)effectiveness of Violence

Bitarch’s Column
(with editorial edits by Ancap-chan)

When you want to achieve a certain goal, you choose one of many available tools. Suppose a hostel has opened in your house, which constantly creates noise and a criminogenic environment near your home. What can you do? The simplest option at first glance is to force the owner to close their business by using physical violence.

But what if they have at least a pepper spray? Now, in the event of your attack, your potential costs have increased. Violence as a tool no longer looks as profitable as it seemed initially. So, willy-nilly, you have to look for other ways to influence them—persuading, explaining the situation to the property owner so they terminate the lease, giving the hostel a one-star review on online resources, and calling on other residents of the building to do the same. In short, you have a incentive to act civilly.

Initially, the simplest tool of coercion, physical violence, quickly loses its effectiveness when the potential victim is capable of applying counter-violence, even in the smallest amount. The former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, once praised violence as a tool of extremely high efficiency. But for this to be the case, he had to introduce some of the strictest rules for purchasing and owning weapons in Singapore, even for self-defense—because even a slight leveling of the balance of violence potential in society leads to a sharp decrease in the effectiveness of violence as a tool of coercion.

I can propose a hypothesis well-supported by facts: the costs of aggressive violence increase exponentially as the possibilities for counter-violence by the victim increase.

Suppose a stationary bandit (the state) wants to use violence to force someone to comply with its demands. If the victim of state aggression has no lethal weapon, a small operational group is sufficient for the arrest. But what if the victim has a pistol? Police special forces must be sent. For a minor reason, such as unpaid fines or the retail sale of psychoactive substances, no one will send special forces. In Alexander Rozov’s blog, there is a post with confirmation of this fact using the example of Sweden.

Suppose the potential victim of state aggression is not some tax delinquent, but a more significant target—for example, a clan leader in Somalia. He doesn’t just have a pistol, but a thousand fighters with Kalashnikov rifles, albeit poorly trained. As history has shown, the damage even from such “bandits” proved unacceptable for the US government.

Imagine that the followers of the Branch Davidians sect, who took refuge at the Waco ranch in 1993, had anti-tank grenade launchers in addition to shotguns and rifles. As we know, the FBI decided to use tanks at the time to ram the walls and release tear gas. If the defenders had anti-tank weapons, such an option would have had to be rejected as excessively risky.

In such a situation, the state could either turn the assault on the ranch from a police operation into an army operation, using mortars or other lethal indiscriminate weapons, or starve the ranch out, with the prospect that these fanatics would indeed all die of hunger. Both options in a democratic state are fraught with significant political damage, which for politicians is even more important than economic damage to the state. For more details on such factors, I recommend reading Martin van Creveld’s book The Rise and Decline of the State.

Finally, we have already analyzed a potential situation where a potential victim of state violence threatens the use of weapons of mass destruction. Currently, this is perceived as something extremely unlikely—not because the state effectively prevents the creation of WMDs by private individuals, but because people who have enough skills to create WMDs also have strong internal moral convictions that preclude the use of indiscriminate mass violence, including against innocent people. If a democratic state sets an example by being the first to use WMDs against its own citizens, this moral prohibition will be weakened, and over time will disappear altogether. No official in a relatively civilized state is ready to allow such consequences.

Conclusions can be drawn:

1) The costs of coercion by the state or any other aggressor increase exponentially as the means of counter-violence by the victim are strengthened. Minimal self-defense weapons, therefore, sharply raise the price of an attack, and against a cheap dirty bomb made from nuclear waste, even the nuclear arsenal of a superpower will be ineffective.

2) In order for a free society (a territorial or extraterritorial contractual jurisdiction) to protect itself from conquest by the state, it is more profitable for it not to invest in a single “wonder weapon,” but to provide incentives for clients to acquire personal weapons, skills for their use, and the readiness to use them for defense. This will also help society protect itself from its own coordinating bodies, should they decide to become a state, since it will ensure an even distribution of the potential for violence. This is discussed, in particular, in the previously translated work by Jack Hirshleifer, Anarchy and Its Dissolution.

Finally, I will provide a good quote from the book The Liberal Archipelago by Chandran Kukathas.

Take gamblers and casino owners. Their activities may be alien or even repulsive to us. However, would the fact that gambling takes place in another country be sufficient grounds for invading it?

Take “monopolists.” They may set prices for their products that we consider unfair. However, would we consider the fact that a country supplies its goods too expensively a sufficient ground for declaring war on that country?

But why are we ready in similar cases to send armed men (police) to our fellow citizens, take them captive (prison), and take tribute from them (fine)? Probably because, unlike a neighboring state, they cannot defend themselves.

Asked to promote it

Sorry for posting other people’s announcements two days in a row, but people in self-isolation have clearly livened up and started broadcasting their ideas into the network with redoubled force. I will try not to fall behind myself, although in my life, with this whole pandemic, almost nothing has changed at all.

Roman Yuneman is known as the only independent politician in the country who managed to defeat Navalny’s smart voting in the elections. And he would be a poor politician if, after that, he didn’t set about developing his success. Yuneman created the Society.Future community, within which he engaged in various expert studies: first, studying the intricacies and pitfalls of the electronic voting that ruined him, and then, after Putin’s January address, he took on work for a new constitution, since the current regime intends to completely spoil the old one.

On April 8, he is organizing a stream on his YouTube channel with a fairly representative team:

  • Vatoadmin, who taught us all to cross ourselves at the word “AES” and to apologize for any reason
  • Grigory Bazhenov, who knows how to scream very loudly at the sight of fuel price tags
  • Dmitry Zubov, whom I know from the Telegram channel Right Economics, but I haven’t encountered him on YouTube, so no stories come to mind about him.

The plan is to discuss pressing issues: how deep today’s crisis is, how long it will last, and what to do about it all. I will be glad to hear the opinions of smart people, many of whom I disagree with (for example, I find Yuneman’s idea of introducing a curfew harmful), but it would be foolish to deny their competence. I hope that some practical steps will also be announced by the participants of the conversation.

So, April 8, 20:00 Moscow time, on Roman Yuneman’s channel.

Three short announcements

I recently published a selection of interesting quasi-libertarian channels, and among them was Artyom Seversky’s channel Life with Others. I specifically recommended checking out the series of posts on monetary policy, but digging through a Telegram channel’s history can be inconvenient. Fortunately, the author was kind enough to compile these posts into a single article and post it on the website. At the same time, you can browse the site; there are some interesting things there as well, for example, an article on classical liberalism and libertarianism by the same Eric Mack, whose book we are currently translating.

The Libertarian Band channel, where I write scripts for a series of educational videos, has started its own separate news section and today released a pilot episode with a new charismatic host. Please take a moment to leave a comment about what you think of the presentation to help improve it.

I have also posted the translation drafts of five new chapters of Practical Anarchy by Stephan Molneux. With this, my budget for incentivizing volunteers has completely run out, so I think the flow of drafts will now stall, and I can calmly focus on editing what has already been sent. However, you can contribute more money, and the volunteers will perk up. As a reminder, here is the wallet for financing the translation project: 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo

Conspiracy Theory and Praxeology

Conspiracy theory is an explanation of facts of observed reality by the hidden, purposeful activity of certain subjects or organizations. It is common to ridicule it, especially if a particular conspiracy theory provides truly absurd explanations.

Praxeology asserts that acting subjects can only be individuals, and if so, it can be assumed that any social phenomena must be caused by either overt or covert purposeful activity of specific people. However, this assertion is supplemented by the claim of the existence of spontaneous orders, which are the unintended consequences of the activities of an indefinite number of persons. Therefore, not wishing to delve too deeply into the subtleties of the theory, we state that social phenomena can be based on both the unintended consequences of the actions of a wide circle of actors and the intended consequences of the actions of a narrow circle. Moreover, in the latter case, these actions and their goals may be consciously hidden from the general public. In other words, conspiracy explanations can be truthful.

In my observation, older people are more prone to conspiracy explanations. I can assume that this is an interpretation of their life experience, since in their years they usually manage to participate in many successful and unsuccessful conspiracies themselves, and to observe the uncovered conspiracies of others. And in general, it is difficult to deny the very existence of constantly conceived and implemented conspiracies, since every government budget has a secret part, and every self-respecting enterprise has a slush fund, as its management is in a conspiracy against the government to reduce taxes or bypass regulations.

In order to avoid constantly shrugging and stating that everything is possible and we will never be told the truth, I would like to have a criterion that, when applied, would allow one to decide for oneself in which case a conspiracy explanation is quite probable and in which it is improbable. To formulate such a criterion, I will use the praxeological concept of the planning horizon (or timepreference, that is, the inverse of the planning horizon, but it is not as convenient for me to use and sounds clunky in Russian).

To evaluate a conspiratorial design, simply estimate what planning horizon is required for its implementation. Then compare it with the planning horizon usually demonstrated by the presumed actors in the conspiracy hypothesis under consideration. If the required horizon is much longer than the one usually demonstrated, this is a strong argument for considering the conspiracy hypothesis untenable.

One more clarification is needed here. If the presumed actor, guided by their short-term goals, unintentionally supports what appears from the outside to be a single long-term design, then the conspiracy hypothesis, while actually incorrect, proves to be effective—the actor was guessed correctly, the direction of activity was guessed correctly, and the fact that not the entire design was planned in advance—who cares, the main thing is in whose interests everything is being done. Here, for additional verification, I can recommend checking whether there were numerous cases where the actor’s actions contradicted the goal assumed by the conspiracy hypothesis. If this is observed, we are most likely dealing with a tactician, and there is no need to invent a strategic design that they are supposedly following.

At this point Scheherazade ceases her permitted speech, as further information does not correspond to your security clearance.

What to spin state bans on

As I wrote recently, a wave of criticism regarding its inefficiency in fighting the pandemic awaits the state in the near future. However, it is precisely in Russia that the state acts in such a peculiar way that it receives a barrage of criticism in a slightly different key. The Russian state is enthusiastically helping the infection spread as widely as possible, while with equal enthusiasm bankrupting its poorest inhabitants and helping the wealthiest with money. In short, everything is as usual, but in an especially exaggerated form.

I heard a good selection of grievances against the state from Alexander Tatarkov. He is a rather original anarchist with an interesting and quite constructive view of the world (one major flaw: he is excessively talkative—listening to hour-long monologues is often an excessive luxury for me). What is interesting about this video is that these are practical grievances from the perspective of an ordinary citizen—this can be effectively replicated in conversations with those very same citizens, and they will nod in agreement and throw in just as many more examples, so it is useful to master this style of rhetoric.

Alexander is particularly irritated, of course, by the actions of the cops, as the most harmful and senseless. All these precinct officers walking door-to-door, picking on drivers of private cars—though it’s hard to imagine a place more epidemically safe—harassing pedestrians with idiotic demands to prove their right to be on the street, and so on. After listening to these grievances, Bitarch, by the way, immediately put forward his constructive proposal, suggesting sending the security forces into quarantine—this is done by simple methods of telephone terrorism, only instead of a mined object, a specific police officer with such-and-such a badge number is used, and as the means of mining—an infected citizen.

While Alexander complained about the direct harm from the state, it didn’t bother me that much, but then he mentioned that the fashion for masks sharply reduces the danger during, for example, robberies, and this is far more unpleasant for ancap ideology. Therefore, I would like to separately address everyone who will be driven to poverty and despair by the state’s actions in the coming weeks. If you decide to commit thefts or robbery—please rob the state. Firstly, it is more ethical, since the state has no legitimate property and cannot have any. Secondly, it is safer, because no one will protect state junk that desperately. Thirdly, government employees are far more likely to be sitting at home and therefore will not suffer in any way during the robbery. Fourthly, if you are caught, public opinion will be far more favorable toward you than if you had robbed your fellow sufferers.

However, I would prefer that it not come to this, and the only thing that can prevent such a catastrophic scenario is the blatant violation of the self-isolation regime by citizens. As in, dear state, since you do not intend to compensate us in any way for the ban on working, we don’t care about your ban. Since Putin suddenly remembered that Russia is a federation and announced that specific measures to fight citizens should be introduced by regional heads, there will surely be more sane governors who will either manage to carve out funds from their meager budgets to encourage people to stay home, or try to let any measures that kill the economy of their domains slide as much as possible and turn a blind eye to the fact that citizens continue to earn money. And good practices tend to be borrowed if they receive positive reinforcement. So it is worth encouraging your mayors and governors with a kind word if the comparison with neighboring incompetents truly looks in their favor, and it also makes sense to remember more severe instruments of pressure.

No one but ourselves will find the balance of freedom and security that is most suitable for us. We shall seek it.

Risky behavior

Continuation of the discussion on the coronavirus. Beginning, continuation.

Bitarch’s Column

My recent article about the idea of bypassing house arrest (“self-isolation”) for healthy people while observing all possible safety measures sparked a huge wave of criticism. I’ll be honest — I have never received so much hate directed at me. Nor so much support. Subscribers were split roughly in half: about 60% on my side and 40% against, but they proved to be extremely uncompromising in their positions! In reality, this exposed a very important problem that I had been planning to write about for a long time. The disputes regarding the permissibility of quarantine measures provided a good opportunity for this.

We are talking about the assessment of any risky behavior that does not directly cause harm to anyone, but has some probability of unintentionally causing harm to third parties. This is far from just forced “self-isolation” against the spread of coronavirus (do you not notice the oxymoron here?!), but also driving a car at high speed, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, the use of certain psychotropic substances, the construction of certain facilities (gas stations, explosives warehouses, chemical and nuclear waste sites) near residential buildings, placing a level 4 biosafety laboratory in an apartment of a residential building, launching pyrotechnics near houses, and much more. If a stationary bandit imposes a ban on any such action, he creates a victimless crime.

Any person calling themselves a libertarian, even a minarchist, cannot support punishment for a victimless crime; otherwise, they have no right to call themselves a libertarian. Some say that, for example, complying with a ban by a stationary bandit against leaving one’s home is normal, as I could potentially be infectious without even knowing it, and consequently, I initiate aggressive violence against the people around me. But if we follow such logic, then even an openly gay person, walking down the street holding hands with their partner, initiates violence against religious conservatives who might have a heart attack with some probability. This can lead to absurdity, which is why libertarian philosophy clearly answers this question: no victim — no crime!

Nevertheless, the problem of risky behavior does not disappear. For some people, the values of freedom, progress, and economic development are more important, while for others, safety and risk minimization are paramount. There are scientific studies proving that the predisposition toward certain values is partially determined by genetics. People from these two categories will never be able to reach an agreement. This is, in principle, an insoluble problem.

All that remains is to seek ways of peaceful separation:

1) Freedom of association and private discrimination;

2) For more conservative people, territorial communities/jurisdictions (TCJs) will likely be suitable, while for those more tolerant of risk and diversity — extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions (ECJs).

In any case, I recommend moving from the habitual authoritarian two-step style of thinking “Crime — Punishment” to a three-step “Action – Counteraction – Agreements for the future.” Only when it becomes natural for you to think in terms of the equality of subjects will you be able to start feeling out your own approach to the problem of balancing freedom and security.

Law, or courts under ancap. A new video from Libertarian Band

This is not an April Fool’s joke: Libertarian Band has finally released the long-awaited video about courts under ancap. I consider it one of our most important works, and I hope the video goes viral at least as well as the old video about ancap itself.

The film crew are absolute legends for managing to produce content at a good pace despite the current situation. Throw some money their way; they’ve earned it.

While creating the script, I leaned heavily on Hayek as interpreted by Zolotorev and, to a lesser extent, Chetvernin, as well as David Friedman and some other sources. I hope I managed to combine these diverse concepts harmoniously and create a truly original product.

I look forward to your likes and comments under the video.

Corona-chan

The coronavirus finally caught up with me. An attentive reader might have suspected this from the content of recent posts in the channel, but the test results only arrived today.

Main symptoms: an urge to hug statisticians, difficulty with self-isolation. I don’t feel a need for artificial ventilation of consciousness yet.

Although the channel continues to operate as usual, it is now assumed by default that posts are created by me in co-authorship with the coronavirus — unless stated otherwise.

Libertarian Ethics of Coronavirus

Evil Pechenka

Original publication on tjournal.ru

An attempt to understand why quarantines and lockdowns are needed, how this looks from a libertarian’s perspective, and what to do in all this mess.

What happens if the epidemic is not contained?

Currently, there is a COVID-19 epidemic, the WHO has declared a pandemic, many countries are closing for quarantine (“Lockdown” — a ban on movement), and the economy is losing money. Many are asking: is this actually necessary? All these inconveniences, restrictions on freedoms, damage to companies, extra power for governments—is it justified?

Let’s look at what would happen if absolutely nothing was done.

According to our estimates, in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would lead to 7 billion infections and 40 million deaths worldwide this year.

“Global impact of COVID-19 and mitigation and suppression strategies“, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London.

So, 40 million will die, 7 billion will fall ill (almost the entire population of the Earth) — this means something like 0.57% of the population will perish. That’s a significant figure, but it’s not 80%, not 50%, and not even 10%.

Who are these people?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics

We see that these will be, predominantly, elderly people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics

And also those with comorbidities: cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, cancer, hypertension.

So what does that mean? Sick elderly people will die, and the economy will not be particularly affected? Yes, that’s roughly how it works out.

Then why is quarantine needed?

It’s very simple:

If a suppression strategy is applied at an early stage (at 0.2 deaths per 100,000 population per week) and maintained, then 38.7 million lives can be saved.

“Global impact of COVID-19 and mitigation and suppression strategies“, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London.

That’s why. There is no vaccine, effective treatment is impossible, so there is such a measure — limiting contacts, which at the early stage of spread will help save nearly 97% of sick elderly people, according to the developed model.

So let’s understand — restricting movement is not about the economy, it’s about saving elderly people, most often those with comorbidities. The economy will not notice their absence.

What should libertarians do?

Libertarianism is not about ethics. Therefore, when we say “libertarian,” we are saying nothing about ethical norms or morality. On the other hand, we can expect a certain attitude toward the epidemic from libertarians.

Libertarianism suggests that each individual takes responsibility for themselves and their own life, rather than handing it over to a “rational government that knows best”; therefore, a libertarian is more independent and takes more measures on an individual basis.

A libertarian will likely make the necessary financial savings for a crisis, stock up on food, and purchase personal protective equipment in advance. This is very rational in order to ensure the safety of the object of responsibility — oneself.

Perhaps a libertarian will participate in various social initiatives: helping other community members, spreading truthful information, protection methods, and hygiene rules. Society is the area in front of the libertarian’s house, and like a good homeowner, they want to keep it clean and orderly.

It is quite possible that a libertarian will oppose attempts by the state to introduce stupid restrictions or excessively expand its powers, for example, banning marriage registrations or introducing total surveillance.

Will a libertarian follow a quarantine or lockdown? Most likely, they are already following it, as they don’t wait for “mom to say what is and isn’t allowed,” but make decisions themselves. And despite the fact that a libertarian opposes the form of communication “government ordered — people complied,” nevertheless, these bans changed nothing in their life.

Can a libertarian say “let the elderly die, the economy is more important”? Theoretically, they can; libertarianism is not about ethics. But such behavior is dangerous to the lives of others. In the event of causing harm, they will bear the burden of fines and other types of compensation, not to mention the reputational costs.

Quarantine Sabotage

Bitarch’s Column

Around the world, many governments have introduced the strictest form of quarantine, involving a ban on leaving the house except for “necessary cases.” The authorities in Italy were the first to adopt such a measure, then Spain and France joined in. Now, it seems, such a measure will also be introduced in the large cities of Russia. I have already written about why this measure not only destroys the economy but also fails to help stop the epidemic. But we are forced to live in an unpleasant reality imposed by the stationary bandit (the state), so I will try to give practical advice on how to bypass the imposed restrictions.

The basis of the strategy is plausible deniability. The point is to have a plausible legend for being out on the street that the police cannot verify. There is no need to declare that the quarantine violates the law or to behave provocatively in general. The police are simply following instructions and are not interested in verifying a plausible lie.

I will provide examples of strategies. The best strategy is to avoid attracting the attention of the police so that you are not stopped and asked why you came outside at all. To do this, take a plastic bag from a well-known retail chain and put some object in it for show (an apple, a bottle of water). Of course, the store’s name must coincide with its opening hours (if you go at night and Pyaterochka is already closed, it will look implausible).

If you are walking alone and get caught:

1) Say that you are going to a store or a pharmacy—if they are open at that time. If you are asked why you walked so far from home, say that the required product/medicine was not available in the store/pharmacy near your home. For maximum credibility, you can always carry a pack of paracetamol and say that you felt cold symptoms and are returning home from the pharmacy. Paracetamol is often taken to relieve symptoms of coronavirus infection, so a police officer will run away from you like a bullet as soon as they hear that you needed paracetamol.

2) If you go out often and during the day, it is better to agree with a friend so that in case of a check, they answer the call and confirm that you are going to their place to fix a computer, repair a faucet, lay a floor, or something like that. Working is not forbidden.

3) During the day, you can also say that you are going to some company’s office to apply for a job.

4) Delivery of goods is not forbidden. If you have paracetamol with you, you can explain to the police that you are bringing it to a sick friend who can no longer go to the pharmacy themselves.

5) If you go at night and everything in the city is closed, a hospital is surely open. Say that you feel unwell and are heading there.

If you want to take a walk with a friend/girlfriend or a child, say that they feel unwell and you are going to the hospital/clinic together. This can be done even at night.

As an alternative—obtain or independently manufacture a pass. This is not as difficult as it may seem at first glance.

1) Register your cat public page as a mass medium and obtain a journalist’s pass.

2) Print a similar certificate, posing as an employee of an enterprise that is not subject to quarantine. It is drawn up in free form.

If you have other strategies, please send them.

P.S. I do not deny the problem of the spread of coronavirus infection, and only suggest ways to avoid aggressive violence from the stationary bandit. Be sure to maintain a social distance of 2m, wear a mask and glasses, open handles and press elevator buttons through a napkin, which you should throw away immediately, and do not leave the house if you have COVID-19. Deliberately infecting peaceful people with the virus contradicts the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and is in no way permissible.