One may have different views on the truthfulness of the stories described in the Bible, but that does not negate their philosophical meaning. A rather interesting idea was described in the Book of Exodus, known as the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In essence, it describes the idea of applying a strategy known today as “deterrence by punishment” or the deterrence doctrine (DD), two millennia before the research of the RAND Corporation in the mid-20th century.
This biblical plot, in modern terms, describes a struggle for the right of a specific minority group to secede from a state. For those who have not read the Bible or no longer remember the details, let us recall its essence. In Ancient Egypt, the Jews were in a state of slavery; the Pharaoh categorically refused to let them go. Moses, the leader of the Jewish community, threatened the Pharaoh with misfortunes for himself and his subjects until he agreed to release the Jews. These misfortunes (“the Egyptian plagues”) became increasingly severe each time—from the completely harmless reddening of the Nile’s water and the plague of frogs to the death of the firstborn children of the Pharaoh and his subjects. Nine times the Pharaoh refused to release the Jews; on the tenth, he let them go.
Thus, the Pharaoh continuously initiated aggression against the Jews by keeping them in slavery. The costs of keeping them were minimal, and the profit was enormous. After Moses began the “deterrence campaign,” the Pharaoh’s costs gradually increased (accordingly, the profit and moral satisfaction from keeping the Jews began to decrease). At a certain point, the cost of retention exceeded the total profit from their retention, and the Pharaoh gave up.
How can this be applied to modern times? Very simply—consider all supporters of etatism to be your enemies, who constantly initiate aggression against us through the institution of the state. Constantly increase the costs of initiating violence until the benefit from a salary, social status, or moral satisfaction becomes less than the damage that will be inflicted upon them.
Is someone calling to beat opposition members with chains? Their photo, name, and address appear in the public domain, and such a person’s peaceful life comes to an end. Do old women from Putin’s squads barge into your office? You have every right to use at least pepper spray against them (although, of course, it would be safer to hold a security license and a contract with Navalny’s headquarters, where these women are barging in). Do teachers at school call you a fifth column and enemies of the people? Their photos appear in hallways, the lock on the front door somehow strangely jams, you have to buy solvents to clean the door and walls, wake up to snowballs hitting the window, and so on.
Of course, this is not enough, for Moses not only asked the Lord to send plagues but also exhorted the Pharaoh. So, one must not only express their “fuck you” to the supporters of the state but also explain the desired alternative and encourage repentance; otherwise, the sent plagues will be seen by them as meaningless harassment, and this will only harden them or drive them into the depths of apathy.
I answered a similar question in quite some detail analyzing all stages of water supply in a free market, from finding a water source to its delivery via pipes to the end consumer. But you are not so much interested in how various market actors will negotiate the coordination of geological exploration, extraction, pipe laying, and repair—but rather what mechanisms will affect the tariffs for the end consumer. And, presumably, you have a concern that without central controlling bodies, tariffs will skyrocket.
Here, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the analysis of such a mechanism for electricity supplies that I provided previously. For the water market, the hard upper limit for tariffs turns out to be the cost of water production or supply by the consumers themselves: this could be buying bottled water in a store, collecting rainwater, desalination, recycling—depending on who the consumer is. But slightly before the price hits this natural barrier, the factors of competition and demand elasticity will kick in: expensive water will be conserved, and at a certain point, the supplier will realize that it is more profitable to earn from volume rather than markups, especially if alternative water suppliers do not jack up their prices and seize the market while the miser tries to squeeze their few remaining clients dry.
At the same time, of course, I do not rule out that water will be supplied to different houses by one company at different prices, taking into account the length of the pipes, for example, or the different competitive environment in different districts. Finally, a price markup is also added by the company that manages the building, if such a company exists. For instance, in Thailand, where I vacationed in the spring, it seems that every condominium has its own water price, because in one they water the garden, in another the pool is larger, in a third it is smaller, and so on. This is normal.
Here is an example of a condominium where water will certainly be expensive
Among libertarians, there is a firm belief that the existence of freedom of speech in a country based on the principle of the American First Amendment to the Constitution is an unambiguous benefit that helps us fight statism. But is this actually the case, or is it a cleverly planned trap that has helped the US ruling elites avoid revolutions for almost two and a half centuries?
Let’s look at the fate of well-known anti-statists in the US who began to pose any significant threat to the state. Jim Bell, the creator and evangelist of the “assassination market” idea, was imprisoned for “tax evasion.” Larken Rose, a well-known ancap, also ended up behind bars for taxes. I think there is no need to remind everyone of the story with Julian Assange and the sexual allegations; everyone knows it already.
What conclusion can be drawn from this? If your words pose a real danger to the stationary bandit, a pretext for repression will always be found; it is not necessary for him to repress specifically for words. What do you think will happen if a full-page advertisement is printed in the New York Times with the text “The State is a stationary bandit! Panarchy is the primary path to freedom!”? I am willing to bet that the next day the FBI will find child pornography or drugs in the possession of the activist who ordered such an ad. Or it will turn out that he likes to abuse his dog and is generally not opposed to eating it. Unfortunately, most active fighters against the state in the US do not understand this.
In Russia, the situation is completely different. The authorities repress directly for politics, and they don’t even disguise it particularly well. We have convenient “extremism” articles with extremely vague content, allowing anyone to be imprisoned for anything, so there is no need to bother planting child pornography on an activist. Because of this, all active fighters against the state use VPNs, burner SIMs, encryption, and intermediaries from the very beginning of their activities, and they never show their faces. As a result, in terms of the difficulty of capture, such an activist is equal to a professional hacker, so it is easier to earn medals by searching for extremism on VKontakte. The investigator is not concerned with the fact that a real fighter against the state can indeed be dangerous to the state: that is not his level of responsibility. The more pressure the authorities apply, the more anonymization methods the fighters against the state will use, and the faster its territorial monopoly will be destroyed. The same cannot be said for countries where people still believe in freedom of speech.
Ancap-chan’s Commentary
Yesterday, Ved Neuman released an article in which he responded to a comment by Laksi Katal regarding the deadlock of the “butt-end”: the lighter the power, the more willingly people surrender to it.
As we can see, opinions are divided on what is more beneficial for supporters of the total abolition of the state—an openly repressive state that discredits itself, or its liberalization, with a potential increase in the level of trust in it. Bitarch and Laksi Katal believe that the principle of “the worse, the better” works: the worse the state, the easier it is to convince people that it is not needed at all. Following Ved, I believe that appetite comes with eating, and once one starts pushing back the state, one will not want to stop, especially if life actually improves at every stage of the reforms. This is especially relevant in countries that lack a developed culture of respect for the opposition, where the custom is to finish off the opponent. Once the state begins to bend, they will finish it off.
So it seems strange to me to consider it a bad thing if the state has to seek indirect paths for repression because the direct path is blocked. On the contrary, this is merely a reason to block those very indirect paths. Freedom of speech exists—it must be used to stop persecution for victimless crimes, such as possession of child pornography or drug use, and any flailing of the state in this regard should be used to incite hatred toward the institution itself, which, instead of trying to justify its existence with whatever useful things, continues to insist on its right to repress a wide circle of persons on its own initiative, without a request from victims.
The question clearly refers to the article that Bitarkh and I wrote about how the idea of national sovereignty naturally leads to the idea of ancap. Of course, the idea of ancap can be derived in many other ways, because ancap is simply self-organization in society based on the principles of voluntarism and respect for private property. It is possible to derive ancap from the idea of the fief. True, a fief is not initially property, but a feudal tenure granted for service; however, it’s hard to criticize from a standpoint of justice, saying, “what nonsense, some degenerate inherited fabulous fortunes and is squandering them.” No, he earned his estate. Then we extend the logical chain and demand that the one who grants lands in fief must have earned their own holdings. We clarify how property can be earned in general—and suddenly the contours of ancap begin to emerge.
It’s not difficult with cities either. Suppose people have voluntarily clustered together for the convenience of trade, production, and defense; they have to develop rules for coexistence, and it turns out that it is beneficial for citizens to treat each other with respect. Otherwise, the magical synergy resulting from many people living close together—which, through the concentration of efforts, leads to unprecedented prosperity—will simply disappear, and everyone will flee from this miserable place. So, while they gathered for a small number of simple, practical tasks, a complex mechanism of interaction emerges, generating a host of spontaneous orders, and this ancap community can force any arrogant feudal lord to reckon with it.
In your spare time, you can practice deriving ancap from anything. For example, once, in honor of April Fool’s Day, I went as far as presenting a doctrine of anarcho-statism.
The emergence of the beautiful Ancapistan from a multitude of individual desires
The peak of political activity among citizens in the country is coming to an end, for better or worse: the elections are over, the results are known almost everywhere, so Russian libertarians are habitually switching from politics to education, which, of course, always pleases me.
There are about a month and a half left until the annual Adam Smith Readings, but so far last year’s program is still on the Readings website. Those who are still deciding whether to go or not can watch the recording of the 2018 Readings. It is truly a non-trivial choice—between being physically present in the heat and crowd and watching a recording in comfort, but in terrible quality.
In general, it seems that many organizers of public lectures put maximum effort into ensuring there are no glitches during the performance itself—but they lack the strength to ensure a high-quality recording or, even better, a broadcast. Not long ago, I advertised a lecture by Fariza Rodriguez in St. Petersburg, and when the recording finally appeared, I was disgusted for a long time because it was unwatchable.
Mikhail Svetov decided to set a record and organize a large lecture tour across the regions: 29 cities in 34 days, from September 15 to October 18. The performance schedule is posted on his website; you can find out if your city is there and register on the same page. Registration should not be neglected because the first lectures have already shown that Svetov is no longer a “no-name” to the current regime; his activities are monitored and hindered whenever possible. So, at the last moment, you might receive a notification about a change of location or something similar. Of course, you cannot expect a high-quality recording of Svetov’s lectures, so come in person.
As you may have noticed in Svetov’s performance schedule, there is a mysterious three-day pause from October 4 to 7. No, it is not a day off. Mikhail felt that one challenge was not enough, and during this very time, he is bringing Hans-Hermann Hoppe to Moscow. The performance of the living classic of libertarianism is expected on October 6; details are available from Mikhail in his channel.
And for those who find it boring to receive announcements three weeks in advance, I have saved for last the announcement of a cool event that will take place in Moscow this coming Saturday, September 21. The organizers couldn’t decide whether to borrow the title of a Balzac book or a Terry Gilliam film for the event, so they took both. It turned out a bit long: The Splendor and Misery, Fear and Loathing of Monopolies. This is a full-fledged conference in the TED Talks format. Four speakers are mentioned in the channel, but in fact, as of today, agreements have already been made with five, and it’s not impossible that more will appear. You can read about the speakers and the topics of the presentations in the organizers’ channel or download the conference program.
I want to separately note that although the venue is Moscow, the conference organizer is the Tea Club. As we know, no network organization in Russia can claim federal status until it conquers the capital; this is especially evident in supermarket chains or, say, restaurants. So, I am watching this bold bid by the St. Petersburg club with great interest, because in this way, they might eventually reach me in the provinces. I hope they manage to organize a decent recording this time, and if you send them some donations, the chances of this increase. Donation details are provided in the same place, in the announcement on the club’s channel.
I am posting the translation of two more chapters “The Machinery of Freedom” by David Friedman, dedicated to the criticism and constructive proposals for the reform of universities (spoiler: universities are being “Uberized,” although, of course, such a word had not yet been invented in the seventies of the last century).
I also slightly revised the numbering structure of the chapters in the second part of the book, as previously my epigraph had the number 2-1, as if it were a separate chapter. Now it is page 2-0.
Yesterday, the state carried out another act of violence against its citizens, raiding Navalny’s headquarters, as well as the homes and apartments of his staff, former staff, relatives of staff, and people who simply happened to be caught in the crossfire.
In general, political life in the country has become very lively. If I were watching this in a series, it would be clear that things are heading toward a climax and then a resolution. And, of course, I would find the series very strange if, after showing events like yesterday’s, I were then told that this had finally broken the spirit of resistance, the leaders had dispersed, the volunteers had returned to their everyday peaceful activities, and the tyrant ruled peacefully until his death, passing the throne to his growing son and leaving his loyal henchman Ramzan as regent. Instead, I would expect that in 2021, highly competitive elections for the State Duma would take place, preceded by a fierce struggle over the admission of non-systemic single-mandate candidates, and as a result, the parliament would acquire a rather diverse look, and with it, a certain agency; then there would be clashes over the repeal of the article in the election law banning Navalny from running for president, it would not be possible to repeal it, and quite unexpectedly for themselves in 2024, with Navalny’s support and to the outrage of the libertarians, Roizman would be elected. Now that would be a plot! Everyone would be eagerly awaiting the new season, which would certainly not be inferior to the previous one in terms of dramatic tension.
And although no one writes scripts for Russia, nevertheless, without satiety and the resolution of major internal problems, there will be no dull police stability here, no matter how much you raid Navalny’s headquarters or declare Open Russia an undesirable organization. Not the century, not the people, not the trends.
Smart Voting showed people that they are not just many, but very many. This means that it is possible to step out of the shadows. So now is the time for the visual capture of space. There is no need for extremist slogans, for it is enough to simply state a position rather than explain it; for explanations, there are internet resources protected from pressure. For example, Professor Solovey suggested mass-producing and selling cheap silicone bracelets with a simple inscription “help political prisoners,” and directing the proceeds toward that very help. Firstly, this benefits the prisoners, and secondly, such a thing is not shameful to wear, but it is shameful to demand its removal, as it is proof that a person personally donated a couple of hundred rubles to help those whom the state persecutes for their political views. Moreover, there is nothing extremist in the inscription. There is no need to try to invent a single symbol of protest—why do we need an alphabet of one symbol? After all, we live in a consumer society, which means there will be competition and a wide choice.
Of course, there will be street protests—how could there not be—but these are one-off promotional protest actions; however, for the “fronde” to become fashionable, people must also wear these conditional neck scarves a la fronde.
Thus, I envision the outlines of the next political season roughly as follows:
A continuation of the trend toward the normalization of protest, the everyday demonstration of one’s moods to everyone around in the form of wearable symbols. Protest becomes, if not prestigious, then at least mass-approved.
Close attention to the numerous ghouls and few decent people newly elected through Smart Voting. Public support for any correct gestures on the part of the elected, even if they were previously in the “ghoul” category: training implies positive reinforcement.
The departure abroad of a number of well-known opposition figures and the formation of permanent teams among them for the information support of “rocking the boat.” This is required by banal tactical considerations. The host of a popular YouTube channel must always be online, not sitting uselessly in a detention center. The studio must work, not be endlessly restored after raids by security forces. The coordination of the network must happen continuously. And so on. There is no longer any need to fear that this will negatively affect the image of the protesters: the myth about the State Department has gone stale. No one cares that something like Meduza is based in Riga, so why shouldn’t Navalny.Live, MBX.Media, and SVTV establish themselves there? One cannot be a generalist in an age of division of labor; street politics and media propaganda must be separated. The street politician should remain a guest on a stream, not a regular host of a show.
Media shaming of deanonymized security personnel is bearing its first fruits—rank-and-file employees are starting to resign, superiors are starting to apologize, and orders for the violent suppression of street actions occasionally begin to be executed without enthusiasm.
Ukraine demonstrates significant economic growth against the backdrop of Russian stagnation. Russian citizens begin to want things to be like in Ukraine.
The long-awaited global economic crisis hits. The regime takes a step that is correct from the point of view of self-preservation, opening the rainy-day fund and lowering taxes—but this looks like concessions to the demands of the opposition and only continues to weaken the regime.
As they say, remember this tweet.
The government always tends to do its manicure with an angle grinder
My team and I at Libertarian Band have released a new video, this time — about ancap. Back in winter, I wanted to write an overview text about how I see the relationship between the main currents of libertarianism (which differs from the traditional division into minarchism and ancap), but I never got around to it. Instead, this was achieved in a series of five videos, which finally concludes today.
The “Libertarianism for Grandmas” series will continue; in the second part of the cycle, we will focus on explaining individual key concepts for libertarianism. For now, as they say, subscribe, leave likes, and send bitcoins if you like what we’re doing. It’ll only get cooler from here!
And for those who wish to deepen their knowledge of ancap without waiting for new videos — you are most welcome to read our translation of The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, which is also still ongoing, but a significant part of the book has already been translated.
The texts are extremely pseudo-scientific, full of fluff and appeals to authority, so I will give you a brief summary; you can check the original for reference.
Article Summary
First, the articles formulate an observation that is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of the conceptual apparatus of the Austrian School of Economics: that when attempting to use methods of natural sciences to describe the interaction of subjects, the researcher faces inevitable failure, because the actions of subjects are not determined, as they possess their own interests and free will.
Next, a step forward is taken, and it is said: look, quantum mechanics—there is no determinism there either, observation directly affects the result, and in general, it is very similar to the behavior of acting subjects. Why not apply the apparatus of quantum mechanics to praxeology?
Next, the conceptual apparatus is applied as an example to describe context-dependent choice (one of the objects of study in the currently fashionable behavioral economics), and it is shown that, look, it was successfully described, so now we will prove any subjectivism and irrationality to you using algebra.
Then the next step is taken. Now, quantum mechanics gave us the laser. Since we have applied the terminology of quantum mechanics to society, let’s construct a social laser. A regular physical laser produces a beam of coherent radiation; a social one should produce directed coherent social activity. A regular laser requires pumping to excite a coherent launch, and society requires pumping too. All that remains is to figure out how to correctly pump society, and then, by skillfully sending it a series of signals, one can obtain the desired action for the initiator at the output. It’s just a matter of funding, and those who hurried to act are already slicing up grants.
Furthermore, a grant is being sliced for some kind of “anti-laser,” whose task is not to excite society, but to calm it down by selecting signals in anti-phase or something of that sort.
Discussion
Now let’s talk about what is wrong with the proposed model of society and the possibilities of managing it.
A person constantly receives sensations through their sensory organs, interprets them, and draws conclusions. New sensations are interpreted taking into account previously drawn conclusions. When receiving information that is easier to interpret, or that helps the subject achieve their goals, they will be inclined to consider this source of information more authoritative in the future and try to verify things with it. Thus, everyone inevitably forms a set of preferred information sources for themselves.
When receiving information that sharply diverges from previous experience, or which led to unpleasant consequences when attempted to be used, a person tends to mark the information source as harmful and try to ignore further signals from it.
In principle, a person can be irrational (from the perspective of an external observer). They will believe in the absurd, do things that harm them, and put others’ interests above their own. But they will similarly form a certain picture of the world for themselves, which in this case means preferences for information sources, a set of prejudices, and behavioral patterns.
Saving mental effort, a person always gravitates toward information sources that are easiest to interpret. Therefore, they will prefer a popular science brochure over a scientific treatise, a journalistic article over a brochure, and a meme over an article.
Because of this, it is hardly surprising that the key source of the freshest and most trustworthy knowledge for humanity has always been gossip. With the era of social networks, gossip has made a qualitative leap, and now its influence compared to any other sources has grown even further.
So, a hypothetical Mr. Kiselev wishes to build a social laser and fire a coherent beam of social enthusiasm somewhere. He appears on a popular TV channel with a message that “Khokhols” want to feed Russians in Novorossiya to the lard. Prigozhin’s factory starts writing about lard on social networks, commenting and reposting each other, commenting on everyone who mentions anything about Ukraine, lard, any settlement in the region designated as Novorossiya in the manuals, or simply popular bloggers. Then, according to the author’s design, calls begin to go to Novorossiya to drive the “Khokhols” out of their moonshine. A certain number of people actually gather and go, where they are processed into black soil. The topic is discredited, and the channels exposed in this topic are too. The next attempt to build a laser using these tools will fail; a new topic must be invented.
Or another example. A hypothetical Mr. Navalny releases an exposé film about the Prime Minister; the latter ignores the signal, and then the pumping begins: people are urged to take to the streets and demand a public investigation of the facts highlighted in the film. Hype, millions of views, people go out, get hit on the head with batons, and disperse. The movement becomes even wider, yellow ducks disappear from stores, Navalny’s circle of support grows manifold, and he begins a presidential campaign.
What is the difference between the two cases? The difference is that it is not enough to convey information to a person—the information must be confirmed by direct sensations; this is precisely what strengthens the authority of the information source. One could try to turn on an anti-laser and instill in people ideas about the successes of import substitution, but this information will be very poorly confirmed by direct data from the refrigerator. But a laser where the pumping focuses on the theme “everything was stolen” is perfectly confirmed by an empty refrigerator.
Therefore, the room for maneuver for representatives of the regime who do not wish to stop the looting is quite small—they will have to find some external or internal enemies responsible for the current dire situation. However, this is a very slippery slope:
Propagandist to the crowd: – If there’s no water in the tap, it means the Jews drank it! Beat the Jews, save Russia! And the crowd responds: – Hey, brothers, look at him, his face is washed, which means there is water in his tap! Beat the Jew!
Summary
What is referred to in the articles under the fancy word “laser” is a completely ordinary hype-building campaign. Describing a social campaign in the language of quantum-like mathematics will not provide new understanding and will only confuse those who have to work on the campaign, because they will be working not with vaguely fixed “info-fields” and “social energy” measured in unknown units—but with themes, meanings, and concrete people. In short, pure humanities.
But let the grant-eaters in institutes with big windows try to calculate the vector of social tension and model a cascade of info-waves in media fields, and let the officials in offices with high ceilings wait for results from them that provide a magic key to managing the subordinate people—meanwhile, people will continue to go about their urgent affairs relatively calmly.
A quantum-like model for describing cognitive distortions during the sequential scratching of the right ear with the left heel and picking the left nostril with the right pinky
Vladislav Zdolnikov and Mikhail Pozharsky posted explanations as to why Navalny was categorically wrong in his support for Zhukovsky and his refusal to support Yuneman…
So, who are all these people, and why am I writing about this here?
Navalny is the Sole Unalternative Leader of the Opposition, who confirmed this title on September 8 during the single voting day by defeating United Russia (I don’t know about you, but the word “united” makes my eyes spin).
Zdolnikov is a former IT consultant for the FBK, who has just resigned from this important post due to ethical disagreements with Navalny.
Pozharsky is a classic liberal, a former national-democrat, and recently a vlogger and lecturer.
Yuneman is an independent candidate in the Moscow City Duma elections, whom Navalny did not recommend as part of the smart voting strategy, but who nonetheless took first place in his district in the offline voting. Quite a few libertarians worked in his headquarters.
Zhukovsky is a candidate from the CPRF in Yuneman’s district, recommended by Navalny as part of smart voting, and is the only Navalny candidate who took a shameful third place (the others took first and second places).
Right now Yuneman, who as I already said won the offline voting, is trying to overturn the online voting results, which clearly appear rigged. It is also known that electronic voting glitched for three hours on the election day itself, does not provide the ability to monitor the authenticity of results, and the decision to implement it was made in violation of the election law. Moreover, electronic voting has an irremediable flaw: it is either open, which allows for administrative pressure on the voter, or secret, which makes it impossible to prevent and prove ballot stuffing.
So, Yuneman defeated Navalny, and now he intends to defeat another extremely harmful innovation: electronic voting. Quite a feat, isn’t it? Navalny should now literally move heaven and earth to defend Yuneman’s victory, in order to make up for his fault toward him and regain the trust of many respected people. As for our task, it is to not forget to remind Navalny of this, which is why this story must remain at the top for a sufficiently long time.
It is not enough to repost this whole story right now. We must continue to be interested in it, spread news about it, and if necessary, take part in protest actions. This is a long-term theme, like the fascinating voyage of the Yakut shaman, leaving rallies behind him and sowing panic among the higher-ups.
Navalny is 43, is starting to lose his grip and lose out to youth like this
