Автор: Анкап-тян

How will new and underdeveloped capitalists emerge under conditions of anarcho-capitalism?

Assuming that an organized crime group (OCG) could appear, engaging in banditry and robbery. As an example, I can provide such a situation: a citizen (territorially, since there is no state as such) decided to grow and sell vegetables and fruits, but in the absence of large starting capital, all his funds go only towards cultivation and care; he cannot afford security, as a result, an OCG with taped-over license plates and masks could drive up to him, and… I can only imagine such a situation: this citizen will sell his goods and services at a special market, where he will pay (tribute/taxes) for its protection. So the question is: how is it possible for a small business to grow under ancap conditions, given that criminal groups will arise that will rob and kill, and who will be interested in catching them?

анонимный вопрос

All growth in human well-being is based on the division of labor and its capitalization. The division of labor increases productivity because each participant in the system of division of labor does what they are more efficient at and does not do what they are less efficient at. The capitalization of labor is, in essence, the same division of labor, but not only among the immediate participants of the production process, but also across time and space. That is, it is not simply “Vasya digs holes, Masha plants seedlings,” but “a factory once produced a shovel somewhere, Vasya bought it, and now he digs holes faster — and Masha plants the seedlings.” A bunch of people participated in the division of labor, this labor is encapsulated in a conventional shovel, and as a result of such a division of labor, productivity in planting increased.

The flip side of the division of labor is that it is not always possible to organize it so that everyone does what they are best at and does not do what they are worst at. A bad manager (and a good locksmith) may end up being the boss of a bad locksmith (and a good manager) simply because of the way things historically unfolded — the career ladder, personal connections, and so on. The larger the business, the greater the probability of such inefficient sections appearing in it, reducing overall productivity. Also, since within one company the relationships between its employees are not market-based, the division of labor and the division of profit in it can differ greatly. These factors are amplified when scaling a business.

Small business is a form of organization with a low level of division of labor and/or a low level of its capitalization. It is effective only in those areas where the negative effect of scale is higher than the positive one. But no one knows in advance and cannot calculate all these effects — market knowledge is dispersed in nature and is acquired only in the course of activity. Therefore, new small enterprises will always be formed and old large ones will collapse.

And now, after a long theoretical preamble, let’s talk about solving the specific problem of protection for small business.

The capitalization of the business is low, so the entrepreneur grows and sells the product himself. Theoretically, he could protect himself from encroachments as well. For example, it is quite conceivable that a person sells the product he grows exclusively to friends and acquaintances, and as a result, simply remains invisible to a potential external aggressor. Trust is also a form of capitalization. A person invests effort into gaining connections, and then uses those connections to safely obtain profit.

Another possibility of using trust to ensure security is associations of small producers. Each invests relatively little in self-defense means (knowingly insufficient for independent protection against a typical gang), but at the moment of attack, combines their efforts with other members of the association and puts up a confident fight. The cry “they’re beating our people!” has been tested by centuries of practice and works splendidly.

A third possibility is also related to an association of producers, but the division of labor is added to it. A village hires seven samurai. No single peasant alone would be able to hire even one.

You described the fourth possibility yourself: producers purchase a safe sale service from the fairground owner.

The fifth possibility is to specialize only in production and sell the grown produce immediately to a wholesaler, who will come, buy, and take the goods away themselves. This is currently actively practiced by small agricultural producers in Russia, but not out of a good life, and often such a buyer is able to ensure a local monopsony, that is, a buyer’s monopoly. In other words, here is the obvious threshold that the division of labor in agricultural production hits: every producer is interested in selling the products personally to the final consumer, without losing money on intermediaries.

Under ancap, several systemic factors that hinder an agricultural producer from contacting the end consumer are abolished. First, in the absence of taxation, costs for accounting and record-keeping in retail sales are sharply reduced. Second, in the absence of urban planning regulation, the possibility of organizing trade in the city is sharply simplified — in essence, it is regulated only by consumer preferences (the consumer themselves, and not an external regulator for them, makes the choice between the cheapness of the product and the quality of service). Third, entrepreneurial initiative to ensure one’s own security is also not restricted by such a systemic factor as the state.

Of course, without a state, entry into the market for small-time bandits will also be simplified. In the example of the much-discussed Somalia, we see that entrepreneurs there have to invest quite a lot in their security, and yet its level remains low. Therefore, not only the relative size of investments in security is important, but also the level of capitalization in this sphere. Institutions that increase trust in society, a developed and diversified labor market providing potential bandits with plenty of opportunities for honest earnings, the purely technological cheapening of security — all these are measures that make the “war of all against all” scenario under ancap less likely.

Work can be done on this already now; there is no need to ask the state for permission.

The specificity of the force market: it is very difficult to understand whether a bandit or a guard is before us. Most likely, both.

What will happen to the channel once you explain all aspects of libertarianism and the questions run out? (meanwhile, I am doing everything possible to make sure they don’t)

…And justice for all

Lately, indeed, interesting new questions have begun to appear less frequently, so soon I will need to devote more attention not to new answers, but to structuring what has already been accumulated. The results of the survey indicate precisely that people wish to see not so much regular fresh posts, but rather a certain new quality.

In general, the long-term goal of the project is the formation of a community of people who have a clear understanding of libertarianism, are ready to convey their ideas to those around them, and arrange their lives in accordance with libertarian principles. So I very much hope that gradually more stories about successful libertarian practices will appear here, and not at the level of “somewhere far away something was done, I read it in a questionable article,” but rather “our readers implemented such-and-such a mechanism and are telling us how they navigated the pitfalls.”

What pleases me is that the view that it is time to work as a team is leading in the survey. Great, let’s expand.

Translators for “The Mechanics of Liberty” are very much needed. A polished literary style is not mandatory; accuracy of work is far more important. I will be editing the submitted text anyway. So, if anyone feels they have the strength and desire to participate in the translation, take any unoccupied chapter—and go for it.

There is quite a high demand for a guide on the promotion of libertarianism, so I will have to pay quite close attention to this. If you have ideas about what the structure of this text should be, please suggest them; it is easier for me to work with a semi-finished product than to invent it from scratch.

As for building a convenient catalog of previously created posts, I think I will create a more detailed category system and move it to a separate page. I hope this will make it easier for you to find something valuable in this mess.

You’ll agree, it looks quite similar to my channel: many useful things very compactly in one place, but in terms of usability, it’s far from a masterpiece.

Apology for Agorism

One often reads that agorism not only fails to help abolish the state but actually directly harms the libertarian movement. The main argument against agorism boils down to the claim that the black market in no way contributes to the disappearance of the state. On the contrary, by reducing the share of legally employed people, the growing black market increases the tax burden on the white market, as well as the number and severity of various inspections. Thus, the competitiveness of the state’s economy declines, people become impoverished, and the poor are prone to socialist views. Therefore, it is respect for the law and civilized political activity that allow for gradual movement toward freedom, while all forms of rebellion only give the state excuses to tighten the screws.

To everyone deeply interested in this issue, I would recommend reading Konkin’s “New Libertarian Manifesto”, as well as the discussion between Konkin and Rothbard regarding this manifesto. And for symmetry, it is worth looking at Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty”, which serves as the manifesto of the Libertarian Party of the USA—although the latter work is significantly more voluminous than the first two.

Both sides presented various interesting arguments in their discussion, which took place in the early eighties of the last century. However, nearly forty years have passed since then, and we can see what has changed in the USA.

The Libertarian Party continues to slowly increase its electoral support, received nearly 5% of the voters’ votes in the 2016 presidential election, and has a few small electoral victories. However, the trend of the USA turning into a socialist state has not been broken; there is incredible monetary emission and an increase in national debt, and the powers of intelligence services are expanding—in short, the state is advancing in full force.

Meanwhile, agorists have invented Bitcoin, are operating full-throttle in the darknet, printing weapons on 3D printers, and mastering biohacking. At the intersection with panarchists, they are launching Bitnation.

And finally, there is the phenomenon of New Hampshire, where agorists and supporters of political methods combined their efforts, even if without much concern for coordinating their actions. Political activists there are actively elected to legislative bodies and engage in deregulation. Meanwhile, agorists organize direct action campaigns to demonstratively violate idiotic laws—and this also sparks public campaigns for their repeal. It is precisely the simultaneous action on two fronts that led to New Hampshire becoming the freest of all fifty states.

A similar tactic is used by the Georgian Girchi party. On one hand, it is a political party; it participates in elections and is ostensibly a legal subject of politics. On the other hand, it is a gang of hardcore agorists who openly grew marijuana right in their central office and then publicly sold joints in the square in the presence of the police. This led to the legalization of marijuana in Georgia. Now they have organized a brothel in their central office—everything points to the fact that sex work will soon be legalized in the country as well. Thus, we see that coordinated actions of politicians and agorists yield an even more effective result than if they worked separately.

Meanwhile, agorism by itself simply slowly delegitimizes the state and increases the share of people who have, more or less, slipped from under its short-sighted eye. And the political process by itself helps broader masses learn the word “libertarianism.” Both are very useful, but neither compares in effect to the joint application of these two recipes—agorism and minarchism. And we have barely seen the implementation of panarchist developments, with their functional contractual jurisdictions. I suspect that an offensive on three fronts at once would be even more effective.

In Russia over the last year, the positions of the Libertarian Party have strengthened quite significantly. I would like the agorists not to lag behind; otherwise, it will be like in Ukraine, whereas I would prefer it to be like in Georgia. The Russian Libertarian Party has its own Rothbard—Mikhail Svetov. All that is left is to find its own Konkin.

the father of world agorism

Poll on channel priorities

Recently, I haven’t had much time for the channel, and many different projects have already been announced. I would like to find out where, in your opinion, I should focus my main efforts.

На чём мне стоит сосредоточить основные усилия?
  • Add your answer
Results

Хвататься за всё сразу - рук не хватит. Куда лучше направить усилия в первую очередь? Выбираем один вариант.

Hi, a question about the balance of political and countercultural methods

Since the majority of Russia’s population are “hereditary” statistists with deep subconscious demands for a leftist agenda (I was like that myself, and I’m the one who broke away from it), I believe that ancap cannot be achieved through political methods alone. Propaganda for statistists leaks from every crack, and it relies on middle-aged and elderly people (as people with already formed views), while for the youth, very dangerous ideas of “patriotism,” “service to the state,” and all this pro-statist nonsense are promoted almost from kindergarten. This is exactly where a countercultural method is required. In youth, it is much easier and more interesting to go against the current than when you already have something to lose. And reading heavy economic theory…? Few will manage it. Many are repulsed by politics, even though people may be ideologically for freedom (which is why they are repulsed, as current politics are against freedom). In short, we need more counterculture (because the state is in the minds), more agorism (especially in legal spheres—it needs to be shown that freelancing for crypto or fiat, and direct buy-sell deals on Avito and similar resources are good and profitable!), and more decentralization in everything, especially with the approaching total information and biometric control by the state.

It is possible to live, at least partially, according to ancap, and the goal is to convey this to a receptive audience. What do you think?

анонимный вопрос

Libertarianism is very strongly tied to ethics. The same people in the same conditions can either create bloody chaos or a cozy community with respect for private property, freedom of trade, and the values of good neighborliness. Of course, ethics are inevitably developed through the practice of interaction. There is no central authority, there is an opportunity to buy weapons—and with every armed conflict, the survivors will accumulate both the skills of living without a central authority and the skills of respecting others’ rights. But humans did not create culture so that every new generation would have to make its own mistakes entirely on its own.

Fictional plots educate worse than direct experience, but they still do it. Some will respond better to movies, some to novels, some to jokes, and some to memes. The wider the cultural layer, the more people it will hook. Moreover, the cultural transmission of ethical values will allow ancap to be instilled in certain individuals even within a statist society.

And besides artistic culture, there is perhaps the most important mechanism for transmitting values—the ethical statement through personal example. If you are offered “white” employment, you can make a disgusted face, ask how the employer isn’t ashamed to spend the payroll fund to feed the state, and demand to be employed “under the table.” If you like a small lawn near your entrance and want to plant flowers, don’t forget a sign saying “converted to private property by the resident of apartment X by right of original appropriation”; you can even reference Rothbard for solidity. When borrowing money until payday, suggest drafting a short contract specifying: who borrowed it, when it will be returned, at what interest rate, and what sanctions apply for untimely return.

In other words, it is very useful to show that this was not only possible, but that it works best. Draw boundaries between your own and not your own, respect the rights of others, avoid appealing to the state—and be a successful person while doing so. That is when ancap will form around you on its own.

My wall—my rules. And the door—well, I just homesteaded it for good measure, no one else claimed it.

Incels, the state, and how to set them against each other

I have already published two texts about incels, but I don’t like either of them: hostility toward the subject of study is easily detectable in them, and that is wrong. Now, I have finally managed to create a sufficiently unbiased synthesis. Thus, you were able to observe in real time the thought process of searching for the right formulations on a complex topic. I hope it was entertaining.

Progress in communications, allowing literally everyone, no matter how surprising their interests may be, to find a kindred spirit, has led to the emergence of some very peculiar subcultures. And while cultural phenomena—say, a certain genre of music—previously played a significant role in building such group identities, people now cluster much more often by ideological traits or around a specific problem. Our subject of consideration is the incel subculture, and their problem is quite serious: women deny them sex.

The word incel comes from involuntary celibate. Incels generally believe that their failures are entirely due to their appearance, meaning they are genetically programmed, and therefore their problem is unsolvable without violence. Some go further in their logic and begin, for example, to advocate for the idea that women should be legally restricted in their right to refuse sex, or that rape should not be prosecuted, as it is the satisfaction of a natural vital need.

In the article about private discrimination, I showed that, first, discrimination in society is inevitable and necessary, and second, the more urgent someone’s need appears to the counterparty, the greater the likelihood that they will not be discriminated against, even if interacting with them is not particularly desirable. In our age of emancipation, a woman usually does not consider a man’s need for sex to be so urgent that she would voluntarily satisfy it upon the first request, and she is even less inclined to do so at the first meeting stage, before any attachment to the man has arisen. Therefore, it is not surprising that incels are infuriated by modern female upbringing and would wish to change the state of affairs somehow.

So, incels are dissatisfied with all men who do not encounter systemic problems with sex, and all women who choose those they find more attractive. How then should a libertarian convey their position when communicating with representatives of a subculture so prejudiced against everyone who is not part of it?

Telling them about biology, about sexual selection, saying that evolutionary mechanisms work because some are culled—is completely counterproductive. On the contrary, it is more useful to point out that humanity has long stepped beyond the limits of pure biology, and now selection is primarily driven by cultural factors. The world has become complex and diverse; there is no such thing as one single type that everyone likes. There are many examples of women liking men of the most varied appearances.

Thus, salvation for discriminated groups lies in the increasing diversity of society. What prevents the increase of diversity? The state, of course.

It is the state that provides children with standardized education, imposes uniform cultural norms, seeks to ban non-traditional sexual practices and non-traditional types of marriage. Well, when human preferences are unified, those who deviate significantly from the norm begin to have problems.

Of course, incels’ preferences also differ greatly.

Some consider the idea of using commercial sex instead of tedious courtship rituals that do not guarantee a result quite calmly. The state hinders them by not allowing the legalization of prostitution.

Others need precisely a classic patriarchal family, with marital fidelity and strong foundations—they are infuriated that even after entering a marriage, they are in no way protected from their wife running off with some handsome man and even having a child by him, using the husband only as a wallet. The state hinders them by depriving people of the right to bring legal claims for infidelity—sanctions for this cannot be written even into a marriage contract in Russia.

A third group sees no possibility of sex with people at all. The state hinders them by interfering for some reason in the sphere of sex-robot exploitation, although it is completely unclear whose interests it is protecting here.

A fourth group has no particular grievances against other people and their preferences, and would wish to adapt themselves to them. The state hinders them by regulating the field of biotechnology and plastic surgery, which drives up prices. The ability of incels to adjust themselves to standards turns out to be limited.

Finally, a fifth group realizes that the issue is not appearance, but simple shyness and an inability to communicate. The state hinders here too, by criminalizing light psychoactive substances for some reason, such as marijuana, euphoretics, and empathogens. Meanwhile, it would seem that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is scarier—a possible side effect from taking substances or inevitable lifelong loserdom.

One can also point out to incels the fact that it is precisely state paternalism that makes people so frivolous. Why take responsibility for one’s own actions if the state will take care of it anyway? In a paternalistic state, a woman will easily prefer someone she feels attracted to, even if he is worthless as a life partner—because thanks to the state, she doesn’t need a life partner, and she is simply looking for someone to have fun with.

It is precisely due to the actions of the state that powerful migration flows are formed. People flee their talentless dictators to more prosperous countries to somehow feed themselves—and simultaneously increase the competition for women. After all, the vast majority of labor migrants are unmarried men in their prime.

Finally, it is important to remind incels that even if their community achieves some obvious preferences from the state, this will lead not only to obvious benefit, but also to equally obvious harm. If now they are mostly simply ignored, then state patronage will inevitably make them an object of hatred from all those who had to be legally disadvantaged for the sake of incels, as well as all those who hoped for preferences themselves and now feel envy. The state is an attempt by everyone to live at the expense of all others. Avoid this toxic tool, there will be no use from it, live like honest people.

And after the image of the enemy has been formed, one can add a bit of a positive agenda. Pushing political initiatives for deregulation in various sectors, if you prefer a minarchist approach. The idea of organizing ECUs for supporters of traditional family values, if a transition to panarchy seems more promising to you. Kinky parties, drug parties, swinger parties and similar activities—if you are a hardcore agorist and do not wish to come within a cannon shot of the state. One way or another, involving an incel in activity will help them very much, and it is better if this activity is in line with libertarian values.

The question of the socialists’ place in the KU

What is the point of rooting for CJ if it’s obvious that the most hardworking and lucky people will choose a CJ that is more pleasant in terms of tax contributions, rather than CJUSSR2.0? Who is going to feed them?

анонимный вопрос

In the article about FCJ recently translated by our team, the approaches to how consumers choose certain jurisdictions are, in my opinion, covered quite well. I want to draw attention to the first two letters of the abbreviation: these are not just contractual jurisdictions, they are also functional and overlapping.

Indeed, a purely socialist jurisdiction providing all types of services simply will not survive in the market, especially if it is contractual, meaning one can freely exit it. A socialist jurisdiction is effective when it provides the service of delivering public goods with a strong positive economy of scale.

Examples of such spontaneously emerging jurisdictions are analyzed in detail in Elinor Ostrom’s book “Governing the Commons”. For instance, mountain pastures are extremely inconvenient to divide into small plots, and they are used for grazing by residents of several surrounding villages. To prevent the predatory exploitation of this rare common resource, they develop their own complex system of norms and enforcement, thereby forming a functional contractual jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction is responsible for conflict resolution only regarding the pasture and does not interfere at all in matters such as school education. And in this sphere, for example, a network of public schools funded on a parity basis by all CJ members (socialism again!), a private school paid for by students’ parents, and a private school funded by an endowment fund can compete perfectly. This is exactly an example of overlapping jurisdictions.

Putting up fences here to stop the neighbor’s livestock from eating private grass would cost more than it’s worth.

Incels, a discussion

I received a wealth of feedback on the article about how to cook incels.

There were so many absolutely enthusiastic reviews—more than any of my other articles have ever gathered—that I’m bewildered. By all journalistic standards, the article is terrible because a hostile attitude toward the subject matter literally seeps through. On the other hand, standards are one thing, and reader sympathies are another!

But there was criticism too.

I’ll start with the simplest. A photo of a decision-maker’s secretary was used as a clear illustration of the fact that a woman’s success is roughly not determined by male appearance, and therefore, the entire high-minded incel theory simply crashes against practice. Perhaps the caption for the photo wasn’t clear enough, but generally, I wanted to pay a compliment to the subject of the photo. It didn’t work—oh well. Here, I am in an extremely advantageous position, where taking offense means raising suspicions of one’s own affiliation with the group being studied.

A huge number of extremely detailed recommendations were received regarding the nuances of using psychoactive substances. Among the unusual suggestions, cocaine is recommended to increase self-confidence. Well, that’s for the truly desperate; I wouldn’t prescribe that to just anyone. I’m glad my readers are experienced and well-educated people.

But the most serious complaint was the accusation of failing to fully explore the topic. I was reminded of my joint article with Bitarch about the targeted promotion of libertarianism, and people wondered why, in this case, I am admitting helplessness and writing some off-topic piece about individual salvation instead of putting together universal arguments for representatives of the group in question. My mistake. Here it comes.

Targeted promotion of libertarianism for incels

1. The state benefits from the destruction of the institution of the family because it wants the individual to depend only on the state and not be able to rely on their loved ones. But if the state becomes a nanny for the person, the person becomes infantile, and the woman does too. Instead of looking at truly important things, like a groom’s wealth or his prospects, she acts on the principle of “this one is handsome, I want him, and this one is ugly, get him out of my sight.” Without the state and its hyper-protection, a woman would have to behave more responsibly, and a man’s appearance would be far from the primary consideration when choosing.

2. The state caters to immigrants. In the US, these are sultry Latinos. In Europe—sultry Arabs and Blacks. In Russia—hot southern guys as well. This further increases the competition for women. Without the state, the local community would quickly kick out outsiders who do not respect local cultural norms.

3. Speaking of cultural norms. There is such a thing as panarchy. You can establish your own contractual jurisdiction, and it will have everything you need: fines for refusing sex, a ban on divorce, no prosecution for so-called marital rape, and so on. The only restriction is that joining the jurisdiction must be voluntary. Do you think too few girls will join your jurisdiction? Well, then choose the jurisdiction of some Puritans; there, submission to the husband and all that other stuff will be preached, and paying a tithe and attending church on Sundays is not such a high price for strict biblical family morality. But first, of course, you’ll have to push the state aside.

Look, so many submissive tyans! Just lovely!

Incels

I was asked to share my thoughts on them and whether there is any way to convert this social group to libertarianism.

Incels (from involuntary celibate) are a very specific subculture consisting, roughly speaking, of those who don’t get laid. More accurately, those who are deeply offended by this fact, consider their situation hopeless, and intend to vent their anger on this cruel world. There are known mass murders committed by incels, and the perpetrators of these murders are highly regarded within the incel subculture.

The vast majority of incels are citizens of the US and EU. The Russian-speaking community is young and small, but clearly intends to quickly gather followers. The only difference I managed to find in the doctrines of Russian and Euro-American incels is that Euro-Americans consider it a virtue not to work and live on welfare, whereas Russians, due to underdeveloped social services, are deprived of this option, and are therefore slightly more human-like.

The political agenda of incels is quite simple. Correctly pointing out that sex is a scarce resource, these socialists then claim that there must be a fair distribution of this resource. Alphas, they say, can afford to change girls weekly, while omegas are left only to stand aside and be angry. Some blame a global female conspiracy, others “vagino-capitalism.”

They argue about exactly which methods should ensure the fair distribution of sex, but usually, all sorts of government bans are discussed. Indeed, who else, if not a conditional Zhirinovsky, would ensure every man has a woman?

So, what is to be done with them? How do we turn them into allies? About this, as Ekaterina Schulmann would say, read in our new book “Not at All.”

The only thing capable of protecting the world from the strengthening of organized groups of avengers for their trampled positive sexual rights is the broad deregulation of everything related to sex and biotechnology. More brothels with sex robots, full legalization of voluntary sex work, and all forms of marriage—and then the most sane incels will realize that to hell with free sex, they can provide themselves with paid sex, and perhaps of even higher quality. They will even look down on those who, in the old-fashioned way, settle for amateur fucking, while the “right guys” choose professional services, in the form of one-time pleasures or some kind of concubinage.

Finally, since incels see their miserable appearance as the key problem (unbelievably, but these guys largely believe they don’t get laid because they are ugly), progress in biotechnology should soon provide the ability to correct the genome, if not for oneself, then at least for offspring. And plastic surgery will continue to get cheaper.

Incels will not become libertarians, but thanks to the market, they will cease to be incels.

What can be offered to those who are not ready to wait for a mythical ancap and want results here and now? For example, he is an incel himself, or a close relative of his has happened to become an incel (I exclude the “friend” option—perhaps I am biased, but I have the impression that these hateful assholes simply don’t have friends).

Let’s start with the fact that the incel needs to be pulled out of the community. As long as a person is in an echo chamber, any external signals that do not confirm their already established position will simply not be perceived. It is unrealistic and counterproductive to forcibly deprive them of the possibility of communication, so only switching to another activity works. If a guy is busy, for example, working on an interesting project, he has no time to wallow in misery himself or communicate with other miserable wretches. Again, it is highly desirable that this replacement activity involves communication, rather than some autistic poking around in program code.

Next is the hardest part. Of course, appearance plays almost no role. What attracts people to a man is his self-confidence and charm. Breaking through this incel mindset of “it won’t work for me again, enough embarrassing myself, leave me alone, even trying is useless” is almost impossible. Trying to relax a grumpy asshole with alcohol is not worth it—under the influence, you’ll just get an aggressive asshole. Better to try weed and euphoretics. You need a small mixed-gender company, substances, and a minimal cultural program, whatever comes to mind, from playing “spin the bottle” to watching some light erotic comedy. No one is setting themselves up for sex in advance—why would they—it’s just about having a good time. Well, if even laughing together at stupid jokes combined with unbearable urges to hug doesn’t give him confidence, then hand him over to a psychoanalyst; my further advice is powerless here.

Now, when the incel begins to show at least some signs of recovery, you can then load him up with libertarianism. “Look, if you had lived on welfare, what kind of social circle would you have? The state puts a person on the needle of social security and turns them into an incel.” “Look how easy and simple it worked under substances, and no physical dependence, no withdrawals. But the state is ready to crush anyone who helps you with this under Article 228. Because the state needs incels; it’s a divide and conquer tactic.” “Look how many useful practices in the field of sex the state prohibits; even harmless swinger parties are seen as organizing brothels. It creates an artificial deficit so that you think with your balls instead of your head.”

Perhaps these same considerations could have been conveyed to him in his initial state. But then we would risk getting a potential terrorist angered at the state instead of a potential terrorist angered at the female sex. He’ll blow up a security guard in the FSB building, and then you’ll be dragged in for interrogations—do you really need that?

According to all incel manuals regarding appearance, this guy simply must be an incel. But he has no time; he is the secretary of the federal committee of the Libertarian Party of Russia.

Containment Doctrine: An Attempt to Summarize

The discussion on the deterrence doctrine, conducted by Bitarch and me on one side, and the Anti-State public on the other, continues.

To ensure you don’t get confused, here is the backstory:
1. Deterrence Doctrine — Coercion to Non-Aggression. Ancap-tyan, May 8, additions made May 14.
2. Regarding the Deterrence Doctrine. Ved, May 9 (response to the first edition of the original article).
3. Again on the “Deterrence Doctrine” and Coercion to NAP. Ved, May 16 (response to the second edition of the original article).
4. Deterrence Doctrine, Response to Criticism. Bitarch, May 17.
and finally, the latest:
5. A Bit About Democracy, the Deterrence Doctrine, and Politi-ECU. Ved, May 26.

1. I described the development of the idea of a deterrence doctrine, namely, the prevention of war by designating a threat that is unacceptable to the adversary. It was argued that the only unacceptable threat to a total modern state is a threat to its leaders, whereas threats to the economy, infrastructure, army, and ordinary citizens do not prevent war and may even, conversely, lead to a total conflict until one of the parties is completely destroyed.

2, 3. Ved responded that the elimination of a leader leads either to their replacement while maintaining the previous course, or to the collapse of the state, or to the “deep state” replacing public policy—and a reversal of democracy would not be beneficial for us. Furthermore, a habit of terror tactics is fraught with danger: one gets used to them, begins using this tool left and right, like Daenerys with her “dracarys,” and then it turns out that for people, you are worse than any state. Now, crypto-anarchists are a different story: they develop their Bitcoin completely non-violently, and nothing can be opposed to them.

4. Bitarch countered that for the formation of corporate-type contractual jurisdictions—that is, rather providers of government services—the deterrence doctrine is perhaps indeed not very suitable. However, political-type contractual jurisdictions—that is, rather providers of a lifestyle, such as Catholic, liberal, or transhumanist ECUs—are characterized by greater motivation among their members and will therefore be more inclined to use force. Here, the deterrence doctrine would act as the lesser evil, since within its framework, force is only demonstrated.

5. Finally, Ved, in his rather detailed article, pointed out that not only is the service of “unacceptable damage through guaranteed destruction of leaders” migrating from a luxury category available only to superpowers into the mass segment as technology evolves, but services like a convenient flag, offshore jurisdictions, etc., will also become cheaper and penetrate business practice more widely, regardless of how large states try to fight it. Therefore, systematic political activity to develop alternatives to territorial states will yield the desired result without any waving of the deterrence doctrine.

As usual, when several intelligent people discuss correctly, it turns out they are talking about roughly the same thing, just from slightly different positions. Indeed, state leaders are unlikely to accept that some private individuals dare to threaten their power. For them, this is a familiar terrorist threat, and they will fight it with familiar anti-terrorist methods. Therefore, it is important not only that state aggression against private individuals is punished by damage to the leaders of the aggressor state. It is also important to convey to the aggressor the idea that this is specifically an interstate conflict, a conflict between equal subjects of law, which cannot be resolved unilaterally, even if it initially looked like the simple dismantling of an offshore platform.

Therefore, in a hypothetical conflict in the Andaman Sea, a contractual jurisdiction wishing to fulfill a contract for protection against aggression from the Kingdom of Thailand must clearly state that the married couple who purchased the platform are its citizens, and aggression against them is a casus belli; the conflict can be settled in an international court, but if Thailand refuses, there will be war. This is done not out of simple satisfaction of a sense of justice, but to expand the understanding of the state and state jurisdiction.

Without negotiations, it will be impossible to create a precedent. But without an explicit threat, there will be no negotiations. State representatives will simply refuse to recognize the contractual jurisdiction as a state, and therefore, as a subject of international law.

One might object that the resources of a state and a private company are incomparable, but that is a strange argument. First, they might be comparable. Second, it is like with computing power. If a laptop is sufficient for a specific task, the fact that the state has a supercomputer at its disposal does not give it a serious advantage. In other words, the deterrence doctrine begins to work precisely when the price becomes affordable for people. In this situation, individual statesmen may show off a bit, but they will quickly realize that the most profitable strategy is to be “sweeties” and truly safeguard the interests of people. As if the good old territorial state were no worse than the trendy ECUs.

Ved writes about the expansion of the practice of offshore jurisdictions, but as we see, existing offshores are quite helpless against political pressure from large powers. Even Switzerland allowed its arms to be twisted—first in the sphere of banking regulation, and recently in questions of special tax regimes for foreign companies (thus largely losing its ability to be a convenient contractual jurisdiction). What can be said about somewhere like Cyprus? Meanwhile, the use of the deterrence doctrine could help an offshore protect itself from political pressure by traditional states.

The movement toward the desired future, in which the monopoly of territorial states on aggressive violence will be trampled and the sovereignty of the individual, conversely, will triumph, occurs along several vectors simultaneously, and arguments over which one is the only important one, or which are not needed at all, smell of sheer preference. Some people undermine the territoriality of states by creating extraterritorial analogues. Others undermine the ability of states to rob people through monetary emission and develop the cryptocurrency industry. A third group undermines the monopoly on violence itself by making weapons cheap, precise, and stealthy, to launch the deterrence doctrine and prevent the doctrine of total war.

This can be viewed in different ways, but progress in this direction is already happening, and nothing can be done about it. It is within our power only to formulate a doctrine for the use of new means of warfare to minimize damage and maximize benefit. The doctrine consists of justified political demands backed by the threat of destroying the adversary’s leaders, which can be illustrated by non-lethal demonstrations.

The doctrine of tank wedges. Once very progressive)))