Автор: Анкап-тян

How can a right of ownership (or any other absolute right) arise ONLY from voluntary contracts?

Either I will have to enter into a contract with every person on earth, or there will be some kind of external coercion, wouldn’t there?

katta

On February 13th, on the channel Anarchy Debates, we were discussing property rights with an-coms, so right now, while I’m on a roll, I’ll be happy to elaborate further on this topic.

A right is a claim that is tolerated.

Let’s consider the emergence of a certain right from scratch. There is a group, one of whose members puts forward a claim. For example, “I am taking this chair because I sat on it first.” If the others tolerate this claim, the next person can take any free chair, and from the repetition of similar claims, a legal tradition for this specific group is formed: the right of use belongs to the first claimant.

Suppose someone challenged this right and stated, for example: move over here, I want to sit next to Masha. Regular requests of this kind can supplement the legal tradition with a rule: by mutual consent, usage rights can be exchanged.

Finally, someone may present a claim in the following form: get off, or you’ll get beaten. If such claims are regularly satisfied, congratulations, the right of the strongest has appeared in this group.

The more someone’s claim makes you want to challenge it, the more unjust you consider it to be. But whether you will actually challenge it depends on several other factors. First, your self-interest: how great your costs are from the fact that an unjust claim is implemented. Second, your self-confidence: how high you estimate your chances of forcing the claimant to abandon the claim. Third, your stubbornness: how much cost you are willing to endure for the sake of challenging someone else’s unjust claim.

Thus, first, a right is not absolute: everyone has their own opinion about who possesses which rights. Second, explicit consent of all interested parties, i.e., the conclusion of a contract with them, is not necessary to establish a right. Their non-opposition is sufficient. A legal tradition of a society is formed from the repeated experience of declaring rights and the reaction to these declarations. The fact that a contract with the previous holder of these rights is the most weighty argument for asserting someone’s rights is a widespread legal tradition. The reason for the wide distribution of this specific tradition is that very many believe such a mechanism for asserting rights to be fair.

Nevertheless, you may well encounter a situation where a property right you acquired by contract, which was recognized in one society, will not be recognized in another. For example, you will encounter the fact that hashish, honestly purchased by you in one place, in another place is not only not considered your property, but is also a reason for you to be deprived of your right to freedom of movement. And if you believe that such collisions are impossible under ancap, I am forced to disappoint you. They are possible, although they are unlikely to be so glaring.

What do you mean—I have no right? But I bought this hashish honestly!

Translation of The Mechanics of Freedom. Chapters 35-37

Yesterday David Friedman turned 75. Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough time to prepare the entire translation for the anniversary, so I am publishing the next three chapters.

Chapter 35. When Prediction Amounts to Speculation. Here, Friedman admits to us that he described only one of many options for an anarcho-capitalist society—the agoric one, which is equally alien to both communes and corporations, but tends toward self-employment and small agencies of freelancers (cute!). At the same time, it turned out that the word agorism was coined not by Konkin, but by Robert LeFevre, about whom I, unfortunately, know nothing.

Chapter 36. Why Exactly Anarchy? In this chapter, Friedman has to explain why the idea of a limited state is so unsatisfactory to him, and why he so stubbornly defends the idea of anarchy specifically. Unfortunately, the author answers: we have already tried the limited state; it doesn’t fit into any boundaries and stubbornly moves to sit right on your face.

Chapter 37. Revolution is the Worst Choice. Here, Friedman polemicizes not so much with ancaps as with classical anarchists who are convinced that the state can only be abolished through revolutionary means. The argumentation is not brilliant in its originality, but it is clear enough.

From Dictatorship to Democracy. Overview.

Commissioned by the Tea Club

Gene Sharp’s essay “From Dictatorship to Democracy” could just as easily have been titled “From the State to Ancap” or “From Bad to Good.” In fact, it is simply a collection of reflections on how to change a political regime if you dislike it, feel morally justified, and assume public support for your position.

The central idea of the book is that the most reliable strategy for this is political disobedience, also known as nonviolent resistance. A consistent denial of the state’s legitimacy can indeed make it illegitimate as this denial becomes increasingly stylish, fashionable, and youthful.

The weak point of the approach proposed by Sharp is that everything must begin with strategic planning, and then the resistance develops its activities strictly according to the plan, centrally deciding which of the 198 methods to choose for today and which for tomorrow. Thus, the best tactic for a dictator is to sow discord within the opposition, letting them fight among themselves to determine under whose banners they should unite in the war against the bloody regime.

Decentralized resistance, according to Sharp, is far less effective, and this is bad news for ancaps wishing to act through political methods.

On the other hand, Sharp explicitly points out that one should not just fight a dictatorship, but already at the stage of resistance plant the seeds of a new society that will already be legitimate by the time the regime falls, and this fall will merely provide them with legality. Thus, if the ultimate goal of the resistance is to adopt the construction of a stateless society with decentralized law and a free, unregulated market, then the idea of building the resistance on these very same principles seems damn logical; Sharp simply did not consider such a goal: his political fantasies did not extend beyond the Swiss cantons.

The least useful part of the book turns out to be the most famous—namely, the appendix listing the notorious 198 methods of nonviolent resistance. The book was written in 1993; in 27 years, the toolkit has changed significantly, and those methods that are still relevant are already more or less well-known. So, I can understand Leonid Volkov, the chief of staff of the Russian resistance, stating that the book is weak, but I do not accept his reproaches that it is harmful. It is definitely worth reading. As for using it in practice—do so with great caution. Especially since, since the book was written, dictatorships have increasingly mutated into electoral autocracies, and the set of methods for abolishing them will be very different.

Among the book’s strengths is its modest size; if one wishes, the essay can be finished in one evening.

In Praise of Moderation

On February 1, the Tea Club held a conference with the elegant title “Keep to the Right” in Moscow. Among others, speaking was Mikhail Pozharsky, whom I have quoted many times, who used simple examples from the First World War to explain why you don’t need to fight the left to defeat them.

Today, the state handed down huge sentences in a flimsy case regarding the preparation of terrorist attacks, the so-called “Network” case. But this case was preceded by a real terrorist attack by anarchist Mikhail Zlobitsky, after which security services employees smirked with joy, having received new powers, budgets, and quotas for fabricating extremists. History has known cases where liberal reforms were rolled back or bloody wars were unleashed as a result of terrorist attacks, but I cannot recall a single instance where a terrorist attack prompted the state to loosen its grip on society. At best, the state limits itself to increased security measures for top officials, as happens in the USA, with its traditions of shooting presidents.

The other day, a second round of debates on anarchy took place between a team of ancaps and a team of left-wing anarchists. This was preceded by a long period of personal negotiations and attempts to find common ground; now, they managed to organize a civilized conversation in a public forum. And this is bearing fruit—for example, this review in an anarcho-channel. Each side is discovering the other, searching for conciliatory language, avoiding escalation during the debates themselves—and realizing that the main common enemy is not the left or the right, but the state.

Perhaps, over time, it will be possible to sway the brave left-wing anarchists away from revolutionary rhetoric toward something more moderate, so they stop their meaningless self-sacrifice for the benefit of provocateurs from the security services.

Indeed, I myself have significantly reduced the degree of approval for purely military tactics in my articles. I was quite rightly reprimanded during the discussion of my article on the doctrine of deterrence for the example of eliminating the King of Thailand. Truly, the will of one person does not decide so much that one can expect to solve a problem by eliminating that person or creating a deadly threat to them. It is far more useful if the idea of an attack by state representatives is viewed as ethically unacceptable, and this is achieved through the softening of manners.

So, let us continue our activity of education and persuasion, continue peaceful protest and the creation of a mass feeling of the state’s uselessness—and under no circumstances let us give it a reason to claim its necessity for the sake of fighting various dangerous extremists. The slogan that extremism in the defense of justice is not a vice is false.

As for those innocently imprisoned, they must, of course, be fought for against the state. This means taking to the streets, public appeals from celebrities, and other boring but effective political practices.

P.S. I was immediately written to saying that I confused cause and effect, and that Zlobitsky’s bombing happened precisely as a reaction to the “Network” case. Please forgive the blurred take; however, in such a scenario, the situation only becomes even more tragic.

Translation of Mechanics of Freedom. Chapters 31-33.

I am publishing a few more chapters of The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

Chapter 31. Is Anarcho-Capitalism Libertarian? In this chapter, Friedman raises the question in a phrasing that is quite unusual for many. We have grown accustomed to believing that anarcho-capitalism is the most radical and consistent form of libertarianism, but for Friedman, it is not quite so. For him, libertarianism is based on self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, while anarcho-capitalism is based on the decentralization of law and the free market. Therefore, he requires additional argumentation to show that an anarcho-capitalist society is indeed libertarian.

Chapter 32. And, as a free bonus. This is a short chapter where the electoral process is compared to the market process, in favor of the latter, of course.

Chapter 33. Socialism, Limited Government, Anarchy, and Bikinis. Here, Friedman wittily explains that socialism is like the desire to force all girls to wear only bikinis, because the weather, under threat of execution, must be sunny.

To what extent does the GPL license align with libertarian ethics, and how would things actually stand with open source under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

The GNU GPL (general public license) is an interesting example of how, within the framework of modern state copyright laws, it is difficult to permit the acquirer of an information product to do anything with it. Forbidding is a piece of cake, and then you can take that prohibition to court, and the state will help you with the enforcement of that prohibition. In fact, most prohibitions are built into the legislation by default.

The GPL reserves the right for the author to be called the author, while obliging the acquirer to disclose the source code of any products made based on code distributed under the GPL license, and to further distribute them under the same license—the so-called copyleft system. Otherwise, the acquirer of a product under the GPL license has completely free rein: they can resell the product, modify the code, sell the modified version under their own name, and so on.

How is the situation with code distributed under this license likely to change under ancap? Currently, the creator of the code has the right to insist through legal proceedings that an acquirer of their product who has modified the code must further distribute the resulting product under the same license. Under ancap, they would be able to demand compliance with the license in the same way, but they would no longer have any tools of pressure other than reputational ones. I do not think this will significantly affect established practices, as the values of GNU are quite compatible with libertarian ones, and reputational pressure is usually a sufficiently serious argument for IT companies.

GPLv3 Logo.svg

Market Anarchism and Libertarianism

Not long ago, I answered a question about the differences between various types of anarchists, where I provided more of an analytical framework to help sort out the details. And today, on the channel Antigovernment, a rather extensive article appeared, Market Anarchism and Libertarianism — Time to Unify Theories, which touches upon similar issues, but in much greater depth.

If things continue this way, the difference between the libertarian right and the libertarian left will continue to become increasingly blurred, because the very direction of the global economy, as shown in the article, facilitates such convergence. We are simply beginning to describe the exact same society as the desired result, only viewing it from different angles.

Anarchy and its collapse

Translation of Jack Hirshleifer’s article

Recently, following the lead of Professor Auzan, I began referring to certain mysterious conditions for the stability of anarchy according to Hirshleifer. Since this concept has started to surface frequently in discussions, it would be a good idea to examine it in more detail.

Therefore, Andrey Meshkov undertook the translation (and I edited the translation) of the article by University of California professor Jack Hirshleifer, Anarchy and Its Dissolution, where these conditions are introduced. Those interested may also consult the original article (for instance, they might be interested in the bibliography, which we decided not to include in the translation).

The article describes a mathematical model of an anarchic system, its primary interaction mechanisms, and draws conclusions about the model’s behavior. Of course, these conclusions are applicable to real society only to the extent that the model reflects society, but this applies to any method of mathematical modeling. Hirshleifer’s model is not the only one; it is simply considered the most advanced to date, and yet simple enough to be convenient to use.

As a reminder, all translations in which I have participated are collected in the corresponding section of the website.

Jack Hirshleifer

What is to be done with villages and sparsely populated regions under ancap?

Quite few people live there, and therefore the demand for goods is naturally low. Capital will not flow there because it is not profitable, and schools and hospitals are nowhere to be seen in the village. What is to be done about this?

анонимный вопрос

Actually, it is precisely in all sorts of “bear corners” (remote backwaters), where there are not only no schools and hospitals, but also no police or tax authorities, that ancap is currently most evident. In these sparsely populated regions, where useful resources are distributed sparsely over a large area, instead of classic land ownership rights, there exists more of a tradition of living off certain lands. Exactly what the small entrepreneur does there is a secondary matter. Maybe they fish, maybe they hunt game, maybe they gather cedar cones. Their subsequent task is to transport and sell the harvest, avoiding all sorts of oversight as much as possible.

Such extensive farming is quite capable of supporting a sparse working population. It is not necessary to live in the harvesting grounds year-round, and even less necessary to live there with a family. In a city or a large settlement, there are the benefits of civilization; therefore, it is more convenient to receive medical treatment, educate children, and surf the internet there. A great deal of material on this topic can be found on the Khamovniki Foundation website.

If we are talking not about hunting and gathering, but about agriculture, then here, again, the population density must be very modest, since with modern means of mechanization, a large village is simply not needed: there would be too little arable land per person. So here too, relatively small settlements make sense, and for the benefits of civilization—one goes to the city. We can see roughly how this looks in the example of the USA, where the land market is quite free and well-developed.

It is not always convenient to turn a farm into a shift settlement where only workers live while families remain in the city. Therefore, of course, situations where full families settle on a farmstead will remain quite common. This will be their own responsible decision, and the market is well capable of providing them with the means to quickly get from their wilderness to civilization. Firstly, products from the fields must be transported out, meaning that roads will not disappear even under ancap. Secondly, in the absence of regulations, light aviation becomes an exclusively cheap and mass-market thing, and here again we can cite the USA as an example, where things stand roughly this way.

Such a tiny tractor costs less than a normal pickup

I have tried to figure this out many times, but without result. What specifically is the difference between the philosophy of ancaps, market anarchists, voluntarists, anarcho-individualists, and others? I would very much like to get an answer.

анонимный вопрос

I also spent quite a long time trying to figure all this out, but today, it essentially doesn’t matter. All anarchists differ from one another only by shades of their attitude toward private property, and all are more or less equally hostile toward the state. There have been repeated attempts in history to abolish private property first, and the state later. But even when such attempts were successful, it only led to all property ending up in the hands of the state, and in such a state, there remained no room for any kind of anarchist. Therefore, any sane anarchist now, even if they are an anarcho-communist thrice over, would prefer to start with the elimination of the state.

The state is not reducible to the current government, whatever it may be. The state is based on people’s conviction that not all people should be endowed with equal rights. In the view of statists, it is necessary for a certain part of the people to possess rights that others do not have, namely the right to violent coercion. This is needed to lead the mindless herd in the right direction; otherwise, humanity, deprived of guides, will do something bad to itself, such as cause a global catastrophe. A person who believes that humanity needs a guide who forcibly restricts others in their peaceful activities will reproduce the state even after the current government has been abolished. Moreover, such a person may even call themselves an anarchist right now—they might simply believe, for example, that the guide should be collective.

The more an anarchist focuses on how to organize their own life, the more of an anarcho-individualist they are. The more they are concerned with how collective interaction will be organized, the more of an anarcho-communist they are. The more they believe in entrepreneurship as the engine of any development, the more of an anarcho-capitalist they are.

Which specific label a person applies to themselves in addition to anarchism depends mainly on which books they have read, whom they have associated with, and which channels they subscribe to. In reality, the shade of their ideology depends on how much they believe in people. If they believe people are by nature evil and greedy, their anarchism will boil down to ideas about putting together a tough gang that won’t let itself be pushed around. If they believe people are more inclined toward cooperation and entrepreneurship, then their anarchism will lean toward reflections on horizontal interaction and free trade. And if they consider people to be simple and predictable, they will discuss the automation of management and the replacement of bureaucrats with scripts.

I have nothing to fight over with other anarchists. I will try not to let myself be pushed around. I will try not to get lost in the marketplace. I am not afraid of automation. I believe in people, and they mostly bring me joy.