Автор: Анкап-тян

Institute of Reputation

In the movie “The Big Short,” there is a moment when the character Mark Baum goes to a rating agency (RA) to ask “has there ever been a time in the past year where you (the RA) didn’t give the triple-A (AAA) rating requested by the banks?”. To which Georgia (an RA employee) responds: “If we don’t give them the rating, they’ll go to Moody’s (another RA) two blocks away.”

The RAs understand everything, but continue to violate their own rules for fear of losing clients to a competitor.

But what if a similar situation arises under conditions of private courts, where courts issue unlawful decisions or, say, decisions in favor of large clients for fear of the client leaving for another private court?

Armchair Hater

In the situation you are considering, we see how poor system design produces incorrect results. A bank pays for the rating agency to give it a high rating, and the rating agency fulfills this market order. Beyond that, anyone can simply disregard this information because it says nothing about the bank’s reliability.

There is a free market. Companies operating on it provide various services. The company’s task is to convince the consumer that it is a good choice. The consumer’s task is to find out which company is truly a good choice. Exactly what the company provides—food, scientific research, or, say, conflict resolution—is completely irrelevant.

A company has two possible strategies. First: by figuring out consumer preferences, deceiving the consumer into believing that the company meets those preferences. Second: by figuring out consumer preferences, bringing its services into alignment with those preferences. The consumer also has two possible strategies. First: thoroughly study the market and make an informed decision in favor of one of the companies. Second: choose the first company they come across, work with it, and if it turns out to be dishonest, make every effort to ensure its management regrets it. These are the extremes I have described. A real strategy will be a combination of the two.

Thus, the company creates a market demand for studying preferences and for information (whether true or false), and the consumer creates a market demand for studying offers and for sanctions against fraud.

This results in an eternal conflict between the shell and the armor (or, if you prefer, the prisoner’s dilemma). The consumer needs independent ratings; the producer is interested in buying a “tastier” rating. The consumer needs a court that will recover damages from the producer for poor quality; the producer needs a court that will acquit them. At the same time, the consumer is not obligated to be a saint either; they might use a product, break it, and then return it as if it were defective; they might receive a product and lie that it was never received; they might pay with counterfeit money…

If the market is regulated from above on an exclusive basis, then both consumers and producers direct their efforts toward corrupting the regulator and inducing it to act specifically in their interests. If there is no centralized regulation, then the most important factor influencing decision-making becomes the practice of successful interactions with a specific counterparty—in other words, their reputation. I have written before about what an ideal reputation system for me might look like. So far, the market mainly features very clumsy systems for analyzing consumer behavior, but these are not needed by me as a consumer, but rather by those who want to push their goods onto me. Systems that would track the behavior of producers just as thoroughly are still far less developed; they are replaced by makeshift solutions from various organizations with the word “oversight” in their names.

In the doctrine of anarcho-capitalism, it is assumed that insurance companies can perform all these oversight functions much more qualitatively. Whether this is actually true, or whether the market will offer us even more sophisticated tools, we will find out once we discard the makeshift solutions.

The market is learning its letters; soon it will start speaking coherently

The Mechanics of Freedom. Chapter 4.

I have posted the translation of the short fourth chapter The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. So far, the process is funded only by Bitarch, but you have the opportunity to add your own name to the acknowledgments section when preparing the final text, which I will definitely do. I would be glad to receive your donations to pay for the translation to a separate wallet: 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo

I also invite everyone interested to write their reviews of the book. I would like to attach the most insightful ones to the translated text. Preferably, of course, not in the “read it – liked it” format, but of a more review-analytical nature.

The Mechanics of Freedom. Chapter 2.

I’ve posted the second chapter of David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom”; it’s quite short. The third was posted a couple of months ago, and the fourth is currently being translated. In short, the process has started.

Once we finish the first part, I will polish the posted material to bring it to a consistent style and create an epub. I will do the same with the remaining parts.

So far, one translator has actively joined the project, and two more are getting ready while clearing other tasks. If you feel capable of taking on this work, let’s collaborate. The estimated payment is 400 rubles per standard page of source text (1,800 characters including spaces).

What do you think regarding the statistics published by PLUM, according to which losses from cartel agreements exceed spending on antitrust policy? What do you think about PLUM in general? Has it gone downhill?

Ultra-sexy dragon

I’ll start from the end. The channel you are asking about is called “Platinum Thoughts of Young Leftists.” The theses proposed for consideration are indeed the platinum thoughts of young leftists. So why should I think that the channel has gone downhill? On the contrary, it has finally achieved harmony of form and content; it is wonderful.

But seriously, one unsuccessful article or series of articles does not yet write off a channel, especially if it is the product of collective efforts.

On the channel PLUM-TV, several notes were published with examples of how cartel agreements harm consumers, and how state antitrust measures benefit consumers. At the same time, it is not difficult to provide examples of how cartels fail to comply with their own agreements for reasons obvious in terms of economic theory (it is profitable for each participant to break the agreement). It is also not hard to find examples of how state antitrust measures harm consumers.

PLUM concludes from this that the state is a quite viable tool if it is properly tuned. Proponents of AES conclude from this that facts are simply events interpreted through one theory or another, statistics are the result of processing many facts using a theory on how facts should be processed, and the results of statistical research are simply an emotional plea in a political struggle, but by no means an argument in a dispute over which theory is correct—since in selecting countless events into what is called a fact, a certain theory is already being applied, meaning that proving a theory using facts is a distortion. PLUM concludes from this that AES is a faith, not a scientific theory, insofar as it is so deaf to facts. Proponents of AES point out that mathematics is also deaf to facts, describes its own little models and generally doesn’t care whether perfect circles exist in reality. This, however, does not prevent it from being successfully applied to real life—though not to everything and not blindly.

In general, this is a long-standing dispute, many spears have been broken, and generally, it is clear that both induction and deduction should be applied carefully. As for whether the state should be given a chance to improve, or whether it should be razed to the ground, I have touched upon this repeatedly in my previous posts. For example, you can refresh your memory with the post on under what circumstances libertarians might consider their teaching a false idea.

Mechanics of Freedom, Chapter 1

I was distracted from the translation for quite a while, but I have recently returned to it. I present to you the first chapter of David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom – In Defense of Property.

I hope I have enough momentum to continue the work for some time, but the best way to influence my priorities is to financially support those of my endeavors that are most interesting to you. For those who wish to sponsor the translation of The Machinery of Freedom specifically, rather than just abstractly support the project as a whole, I have set up a separate bitcoin wallet: 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo

As for those who prefer to use a lightning bot in Telegram for donations, you can simply specify the purpose of the payment in the comment.

I would also be incredibly happy if you joined the translation work. It is very simple: go to the section where the original book is posted, choose any chapter that no one has taken on yet — and go for it.

If the NAP prohibits polluting someone else’s private property, then does it lead to anprim through the rejection of cars and industry?

анонимный вопрос

The principle of non-aggression is one of the criteria people use to make choices while living among others. However, its consistent application encounters the fact that different people in different situations have different criteria for what constitutes violence. A rock concert is far louder than a hammer drill behind a wall, but a person will readily go to a concert and tolerate the violence against their ears there, while they are far less willing to tolerate a hammer drill. Half a century ago, people were far more tolerant of engine exhaust or smoking indoors than they are today, but it is by no means certain that this trend will continue.

Since universal, objective, natural criteria for such things are absent, one must use various heuristics, such as, for example, the principle of estoppel, which states that someone who violates a certain norm is not entitled to demand punishment for others for violating that same norm. If you smoke indoors, you are not entitled to demand that others do not smoke. If you litter, you are not entitled to demand that others do not litter. Thus, places are formed where everyone more or less refrains from littering, and places where everyone doesn’t give a damn.

Indeed, strong intolerance toward emissions will manifest in some places; we can easily observe such territories called nature reserves or national parks. There, the owners maintain a very careful “non-aggression” on the territory and demand the same from others.

If there is anything constant in human society, it is diversity. No single principle will ever absolutely prevail over all. Not even the NAP. It is enough for you to implement it around yourself to a level that is convenient for both you and those around you.

Mass attack with acoustic waves

What to do if those whom I respect and support do not respect and support me, and at the same time I do not respect and support those who respect (or pretend to respect) and support me?

In short: I am approved by dishonest people, while honest people dislike or hate me. This is very sad and makes life feel meaningless.

анонимный вопрос

Honest people are not obligated to respect and support other honest people. They are not necessarily intelligent, not necessarily far-sighted, and not necessarily have a material interest in supporting you; on the contrary, they may have a material interest in disapproving of you, they may be conformists, and they certainly do not possess all the information, because no one possesses all the information. In other words, the world is unfair.

Nevertheless, people are usually interested in creating a society where certain behavior is rewarded, and sometimes they even succeed in this. Behavior that is rewarded in such a society is called honest, and this standard of honesty, of course, does not have to coincide with the standard of honest behavior in another society. One society will value and respect a clever intriguer, another one someone prone to observing moral norms at the expense of material gain. Moreover, these two societies may even partially consist of the same people. In other words, people build their own little just worlds, and they do a pretty good job of it, but in this activity, there is a strong negative effect of scale that prevents the implementation of a single universal standard of justice.

You might admire some “honest scoundrel” who skillfully undermines his colleagues, and in an attempt to win his respect, you skillfully undermine his mother. That is when it will turn out that for the mother, the honest scoundrel follows different standards of honesty. You might admire the generosity of spirit of your colleague, only to find out that for work, he requires competence and adherence to instructions from you, and he would rather appreciate your generosity of spirit in a non-work setting. Or, conversely, you might demonstrate that very professional competence at work, yet be disliked in the office because you don’t wash your cup or you laugh at jokes at the wrong time.

The ability to understand what actions who expects from you and at what moment is called emotional intelligence. It seems to me that this is a combination of ordinary intelligence (the ability to analyze) plus empathy (the ability to sympathize). Mirror neurons in the brain are responsible for empathy, and where there is a neural network, there are techniques for training that neural network. Try copying other people’s manners, voice, movements, and intonations. Pay attention to the sensations that arise in you while doing this. Model other people’s behavior in your head, striving to make the model as close to reality as possible. Try copying the writing styles of different people. Over time, you will sharpen your perceptiveness.

Unfortunately, I cannot boast that I possess high emotional intelligence myself. I am the type of person who would rather pass a PE exam by writing a paper on running technique than run a hundred-meter dash for a grade. So, I won’t be able to inspire you with a personal example, but you weren’t looking for an example from me, but rather advice. I am good at giving advice.

Let’s get pumping!

How will ancaps solve the problem with the Gypsy ECU?

анонимный вопрос

As far as I can tell, Roma have an extraterritorial jurisdiction that is not contractual. You cannot simply show up from the outside and enroll as a Romani person. This jurisdiction may enter into informal contracts with other mafia-style extraterritorial jurisdictions, or remain in a state of nature relative to other jurisdictions.

What are the characteristics of the Romani community? It is a fairly ordinary nomadic tribe that has preserved a number of archaic traits, specifically, the fact that they do not consider outsiders to have legal standing. Regarding their own, the Roma are guided by principles of respect for property that are customary and clear to any ancap, plus some quirks regarding the regulation of personal and family life, which, however, are characteristic of many other ethnicities. As for an outsider, they can be cheated, robbed, or even killed; this is not considered immoral, is not prosecuted within the Romani jurisdiction, and the only regulator is utilitarianism: if you get too arrogant, you’ll have to move camp sooner than you’d like.

However, let us transport ourselves to a bright future where ancap dominates a fairly significant territory, and the Roma appear there. To start with, under ancap, land is either no one’s or private. Therefore, for a camp to settle, they will either need to find a piece of unclaimed land, which usually means some distance from populated areas, or rent a plot.

Rent land to the Roma for living? Why not, if you take money upfront and have enough strength to evict them from the place by force. So, if the Roma want to live closer to their foraging base, they will have to deviate from their principles and shell out. This is exactly the same attitude they will mostly encounter among everyone else: only secured transactions. There is nothing terrible about this; after all, some crypto-markets work this way even now. Transactions between strangers always need mechanisms that allow them to be carried out despite the lack of trust between them. The simplest such mechanism is a trusted intermediary—a third party monitoring compliance with the terms of the deal.

Of course, if the Roma behave under ancap as they are used to, after some time the question of liability for contracts, which they tricked trusting citizens into and failed to fulfill, may arise. Since ancient times, the camp’s simple answer to such claims has been: move camp. Technical progress, however, reduces the costs of pursuing a debtor faster than the costs of moving. Nevertheless, chasing nomads and shaking debts out of them is a hassle, so I would suggest that those intending to deal with the Roma under ancap use one simple tool: a deposit.

Deposits are already actively used now, for example, when you check into a hotel. It is collected upon check-in and covers the approximate amount of your possible liability for damages in the room. Checked out without notice, stolen something—losses will be covered by the deposit. Checked out normally—received your deposit at the reception. Exactly the same thing can be practiced when renting a camping site or a building plot to a camp: you take the rent for a month in advance and a deposit equal to the annual fee. Any monetary claims against a member of the camp are either settled personally by the violator as part of an amicable agreement, or if they manage to agree with the plaintiff on an arbitrator, through court—otherwise, the claim amount is simply deducted from the deposit. Lived for a year without exhausting the deposit—well done, for the next year the deposit can be slightly reduced.

And if a particular camp manages to cause losses exceeding the deposit and immediately moves away, the deposit in the next location may turn out to be significantly higher.

The consistent instillation of a culture of honest trade will gradually lead to the morality in the Romani community becoming more universal, and cheating an outsider will become “low class.” All other culture can easily remain, as culture is a good export commodity.

Political coordinates

I have very often seen assertions from conservatives, fascists, and other people occupying the upper-right corner of the political spectrum, claiming that libertarianism is a left-wing idea, that libertarians are enemies of tradition and therefore leftists, and that judging right-wing status based on economics is nonsense. Could you tell me how to respond to such people?

Alexey Antonov

Any ideology is described in human language, and then the specific premises underlying the ideology are compared. However, for a clear comparison of many different systems of views, it is common to use a geometric metaphor, assigning ideologies numerical values on coordinate axes. Some use the one-dimensional “left-right” metaphor. Others prefer a two-dimensional one, such as the Nolan chart or other variations of the political compass. The 8values test is popular online, where we already have four dichotomies. In any case, these are all nothing more than illustrations.

Arguing about the most correct way to transfer libertarians from a two-dimensional compass to a one-dimensional segment—whether by cutting the economic scale, cutting the conservatism scale, or recalculating the values on both scales into a single figure—is roughly like arguing about which single word to replace the two epithets “brilliant” and “heroic” with in order to fit them into an ode praising a dictator.

What qualities and knowledge must a person possess to call themselves a libertarian without shame?

анонимный вопрос

If we approach the issue purely formally, to call oneself a libertarian without shame, a single quality is sufficient: shamelessness.

So, for a more substantial answer, I would phrase the question differently: what qualities and knowledge must a person possess for me to be able to say, without shame, that they are a libertarian.

I must say, my requirements are quite minimalist. It is enough for me that a person is guided by libertarian principles in their own life. Knowledge of the intricacies of libertarian doctrine and economic theory, an entrepreneurial vein, the ability to competently explain why roads are not so necessary—these are all pleasant, but not mandatory, additions.

Accepting oneself as one’s own property, for which you yourself bear full responsibility. Respect for the property of other people. Readiness to appropriate ownerless resources for the benefit of yourself and your loved ones. Readiness to defend what is yours. Avoiding, whenever possible, cooperation with the state, and certainly sabotaging its strengthening.

The main emotion that, it seems to me, a libertarian should evoke in a statist is bewilderment: wait, was that actually possible? In this sense, an exemplary libertarian for me is the Moscow region farmer Mikhail Shlyapnikov. He didn’t want to die from some incurable ailment, moved to a village, issued his own private money, built a strong farm, took local self-government into his own hands, is expanding, growing stronger, and replicating his experience for all who wish. And I don’t really care whether he has read Mises or limited himself to an agronomy handbook.