Автор: Анкап-тян

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.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Chapter on Locke.

Many thanks to Mikhail Pozharsky, who promoted our translation project of Libertarianism by Eric Mack. As a result, we have seen a surge in website traffic and gained two new translators, though the rain of donations hasn’t quite fallen yet. Nevertheless, the work continues.

The second part of the book is dedicated to the philosophical premises of libertarianism. Today I am posting a short Introduction to the second part, as well as the first chapter: Locke on natural rights, civil society, resistance and toleration.

The author explains which doctrines of the time Locke opposed with his ideas, where he derives them from, what conclusions he draws, what couple of caveats he accompanies the concept of original appropriation of property with, for what purpose people form a government, at what point they should begin to rebel against it — and why such a rebellion would be just.

Be sure to send your donations to the address 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo — and next time we will be able to tell you what Hume wrote about the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation.

P.S. It turned out that in addition to the text we pirated, there is another bonus section attached to the book, open to all. But for consistency, we have also posted it on our website, and we will translate it in time. Therefore, the total number of chapters in our progress bar has changed.

Bitcoin. A new video from Libertarian band

The second episode of the third season of our favorite series by Libertarian band has been released. The third season, dedicated to the mechanisms of a stateless society, began with the criteria for the stability of anarchy. We examined several of them, chose one, and settled firmly on it. Bitcoin is an excellent illustration of how this criterion works.

We briefly went through the history of money and described why Bitcoin emerged, why it was created in this specific way, and why it is an excellent tool for a stateless society, without which, of course, things would have been significantly more difficult for us in the wonderful Ancapistan of the future.

Translation of Mechanics of Freedom, Chapter 44

I continue to provide you with content for leisurely quarantine reading, this time returning to grandfather Friedman. Chapter 44, Private Law Enforcement, Medieval Iceland, and Libertarianism, is not comparable in size to the previous one, of course, but it is still quite large. Nevertheless, it is much easier to read because this time it is not theory, but history, and based on fiction at that.

In general, the age of the sagas in Iceland is almost my favorite historical period, perhaps second only to ancient Greece, so I edited the text with great pleasure; I wish it were always like this. I hope you will also enjoy the reading, and from there, you can go ahead and download the saga of Egil — and off you go, diving into the world of proto-ancap!

Translation of Eric Mack’s “Libertarianism.” Introduction.

The world is going into quarantine, and it is a good time to pay less attention to the news and instead engage in something more fundamental. If you read English fluently, I recommend getting acquainted with Eric Mack’s book Libertarianism, which our team pirated and posted on my site without asking the author. But if you prefer to read in Russian, you have a great opportunity to sponsor the translation of the book. For now, I am posting the introduction so that you can get a general impression of the text.

The book describes how global philosophical thought arrived at the ideas of libertarianism, how these ideas were formulated, what criticism they faced, and how that criticism is countered. While Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom or Molynieux’s Practical Anarchy are more applied works that may be debatable in some details, here we are in the space of more or less pure theory.

The language of the book is quite heavy, but we are not making an academic edition, so we will adapt the author’s speech as much as possible so that it remains somewhat readable.

In total, the translation will require approximately 75 thousand rubles. For now, I am ready to accept only bitcoins at the address already known to you 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo , but as much as I am able, I am also looking into anonymous fiat payment systems and perhaps soon you will have a relatively simple way to send money in fiat.