Автор: Анкап-тян

Hello. How do you comment on this situation and the comments on it:

“Biometrics will not help security. You will simply lose the last of it”

анонимный вопрос

I already had an article on this topic, where I went significantly further in my futurological predictions and gave recipes on how to live in this new reality. It also spoke of the main danger possible on the path to this future: information asymmetry. There is nothing absolutely terrible about the fact that everyone can find out everything about everyone and forge any data about them. It is scary when some can, and others cannot.

That is why it is so important to promote the abolition of any monopolies in the field of information processing. Leaks from Facebook or government databases are not what is scary. What is scary is if they don’t exist. The ideal is if everyone sees everything anyway, and it is pointless to hide anything.

But in the transition period, when states and other centralized systems still dominate, and the means of working with data and generating deep fakes are already quite developed, excesses are inevitable, which will only spur progress in the industry.

Биометрия не поможет безопасности
You don’t want it to be like in China, do you? Then you need to practice breaking this system.

Anniversary of the project launch

A year ago, on May 30, 2018, the first post was published as part of this project. What followed was quite winding; you can read a brief summary on the “About the project” page.

Over the year, approximately 400 posts were published, 283 of which were answers to your questions. In recent months, there have been more long-reads and translations of English-language materials. I am terribly short on time, otherwise there would have been even more material.

As of today, the channel has 847 subscribers on Telegram, 135 on Facebook, and 78 on Twitter. This is modest; I was really itching to give myself an anniversary gift, buy a couple of promotional posts, and reach a thousand. On the other hand, I desire citability more than subscribers. Before the New Year, I complained about the same thing, but so far I have done little to correct the situation.

On the other hand, the small audience that the project managed to gather is inspiring. An exceptionally cozy chat has formed around the project, where, despite extremely light moderation, we manage to communicate quite civilly on topics of varying degrees of seriousness and intensity.

It is especially pleasant to see your regular donations. Over the year, you sent 0.3 bitcoin to the main wallet, and another 0.019 bitcoin via Lightning. I am terribly glad that you value me so much, and I hope that I can continue to justify your trust.

I want to separately mention the established ongoing cooperation with a number of other libertarian resources. First and foremost, this is, of course, Bitarch. As I understand it, he not only runs his own VKontakte public page but also actively sponsors content production by other authors, including myself. This also includes the public pages Freedom pride and Antistate. I don’t understand how one can seriously rely on VK as a primary channel for content distribution, but these guys somehow manage. The channels Dobroum and Tea Club stand slightly apart—systemic cooperation hasn’t happened there yet, but there is some exchange of ideas and episodic mutual promotion. I hope to grow closer in the future to the author channels of Vladimir Zolotorev and Vladimir Popov, but for now, my sympathy for them is mostly one-sided. I have successfully turned to Alexey Tereshchuk and Pavel Usanov for consultations, and I keep a few other experts on special issues in mind. Finally, a couple of reference bots operate in the expanses of Telegram, Mister Mises and Libertarian Answers—they use some of my texts. If the owners of these bots are reading me—friends, you can not only take ready-made answers but also request custom texts on specific topics. Just specify the topic and which resource the order is for.

I am often asked if I will do streams. I won’t make any promises, but it is unlikely. The text format is the coziest for me, and also optimal in terms of maintaining anonymity. Perhaps I will be able to cooperate with someone on the production of videos, but only as a scriptwriter. I haven’t received any offers from anyone willing to take care of everything else, and I cannot handle the organization myself. So, it’s all in your hands.

How does capitalism work under conditions of full or nearly full automation of labor?

анонимный вопрос

The difference between an enterprise with automated and non-automated labor can be easily illustrated using the example of a kitchen. You could hire a cook, pay her pennies, and she would prepare whatever your heart desires and go to the market for groceries herself. Or you could buy a refrigerator, a microwave, and stock up on semi-finished products yourself. Such dining could be cheaper or more expensive than having a cook, but the hired employee is removed from the equation, along with all the baggage in their head, the need to rely on their conscientiousness, and the requirement to pay them regardless of whether you eat at home or at a restaurant today.

Labor automation does not even save so much as money (although in the long run, of course, it does). The main thing is that it saves nerves. An entrepreneur always strives to reduce their risks. Making the success of one’s activity dependent on someone’s goodwill is always a risk. Today the employee works hard, tomorrow they take sick leave, or bury a grandmother, or strike, or quit—and plans must be adjusted. Therefore, investing more capital to rely less on labor is always a great temptation, even if the monetary gain is relatively small.

In general, capitalism works magnificently under conditions of full or nearly full replacement of labor by capital. However, under conditions where labor is hardly automated, it always tends to degenerate into something paternalistic. One should seemingly think in terms of costs and profits, but is forced to think in terms of social responsibility. Therefore, mass manual production inevitably gives rise to various socialist or feudal practices, whereas automated production can be easily reduced to purely market relations.

I could gaze at it for a century! Only two supervisors for the robots, absolute beauty!

Connecto VPN

During the period when Roskomnadzor was going crazy and using a scattergun approach in attempts to block Telegram, a proxy from Vee Security helped many Russian users. Now Roskomnadzor has toned down its fervor, Telegram has become smarter, and for most of the time, it no longer requires a proxy.

However, this episode demonstrated that people in a repressive state (and potentially all states are repressive) should learn the rules of network hygiene in advance. In particular, one means for this is the use of VPN services.

Of course, if you have specific tasks such as surfing from behind the Great Firewall of China or watching movies on Netflix from a country where it does not distribute content, you have likely already found reliable, fast, and expensive services for this. However, for the vast majority of users, this is excessive functionality that they do not want to overpay for.

Connecto VPN by Vee Security is exactly such an optimal solution for our modest market. On one hand, there is a clear emphasis on security. No logs, no mandatory personal data when connecting, and if desired, the service can be paid for with cryptocurrencies. On the other hand, with monthly payment, the price is only four euros per month, while the market leaders ask for around ten.

The company has only four servers so far, but I read winter reviews, and there were three back then. Steady growth as the company scales is a good, sustainable business model. Vee Security is located in the safe Estonian jurisdiction, so Russian clients have nothing to fear in this regard.

For everyone who decides to connect to the Connecto VPN service via my link, I will receive 2 euros for a monthly subscription, 5 euros for a semi-annual one, and 8 euros for an annual one. So, if you were thinking about donating some money to me anyway, you can combine business with pleasure. The service is truly good; I have read many warm reviews about it, not only immediately before writing this article while trying to find any pitfalls, but long before that, from my acquaintances. Usually, they praised it.

At the same time, I recommend subscribing to the channel of the owner of Vee Security, dedicated to cybersecurity. Security issues can also be discussed in the corresponding chat.

New translation!

We present for your consideration a translation of the article by Rainer Eichenberger and Bruno Frey “Functional Overlapping and Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJ): Developing the Idea of Modern Federalism”.

The article examines a model for a soft, evolutionary transition to a libertarian society through functional panarchy. The model was developed for actual implementation via political means (which is why it is non-radical and complies with the requirements of legislation on political parties). It could serve as a strong foundation for updating the program of the Libertarian Party of Russia, as it is well-suited for heterogeneous political entities such as the Russian Federation. Although a significant portion of the article is dedicated to proposals for reforming the European Union, a separate chapter analyzes the specifics of implementing FOCJ in developing countries.

Translation: Kreadon
Editing: Ancap-chan
General coordination: Bitarch

What ways exist to rehabilitate people in the eyes of the libertarian public in the case of a complicated background?

For example, what if there were some relationships with “United Russia” in the past, or if non-libertarian laws were promoted? In general, what do you advise such people to do? Is damaging those in power through compromising materials or lawsuits the only format? And what if those in power were not comrades of any sort, and there is no compromising material on hand? Perhaps reversing the adopted bad laws would also work? Maybe something else?

Sergey Sushinsky

This is a very complex topic if viewed through the prism of holistic constructs like the “libertarian public,” but it becomes much simpler if one does not deviate from the principle of methodological subjectivism. It is impossible to please the public as a whole; it is impossible to stain your reputation in the eyes of absolutely everyone, and to an equal extent. To some, Stalin is a bloody tyrant; to some, the father of nations; and to some, a weakling who failed to crush the hydra of counter-revolution.

There are very intolerant libertarians, at least in their public rhetoric. Judging by your mention of compromising materials on government representatives in your question, you clearly meant, among other things, “how to curry favor with Mikhail Svetov if you are Dmitry Gudkov.” You can’t. Svetov is just as biased as many others, and will similarly fit the arguments to his pre-existing opinion. This works both negatively and positively; any conditional Svetov will inevitably have a “inner circle” that is forgiven more than outsiders. This is normal, in the sense that it is determined by our biology.

From the outside, of course, one can indeed imagine horrors. If these guys are so strict with a person whose father voted for bad laws and who did not disown him, then what will they say about a person who personally lobbied for bad laws?

In fact, however, people are quite inclined to respect those who act in accordance with their convictions, and when those convictions change, those who honestly admit it and declare their new agenda, providing a justification for why it appeared.

You believed smoking was an evil and lobbied for anti-tobacco laws. Now you believe smoking is an evil, but you consider anti-tobacco laws an even greater evil. This is a perfectly natural evolution of thought, and you naturally seek arguments now against the lobbying of anti-tobacco laws. You collaborated with United Russia, realized that it was not only futile but harmful, and now you seek ways to shake its monopoly. This is a far more understandable, consistent, and respectable position than having no position at all, or simply claiming that no one can be trusted and there is no point in trying.

Take Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly: he used to be involved in public politics, and now he has not only cooled toward it but considers the pursuit harmful. I believe he is wrong, but given the difference in experience, I fully admit that I might be the one who is wrong. We have noted our disagreement, and I hope that for him this will not be a reason to “cut me out of the movement,” as especially intolerant people like to do. If you encounter such people, simply understand that using simple oppositions saves a great deal of mental effort, and do not force them to strain themselves where they don’t need to. On the other hand, they can use their thinking to the fullest where it is more justified for them, and division of labor is great, even if it is the division of brain labor between separate tasks.

I am not a neurobiologist, and it is difficult for me to say what this brain is busy with now, but in any case, that is its private business

A little more about Zelensky

Yesterday’s spontaneous post about how Ukraine has finally waited for a libertarian president caused a number of comments from actual Ukrainian libertarians, such as, for example, Vladimir Zolotoryov. The comments boil down to the fact that there is nothing to rejoice about; Zelensky is as much a libertarian as Zolotoryov himself is a communist, so he will ruin everything no better than Balashov.

Indeed, Zelensky’s statements are quite contradictory: he simultaneously quotes Reagan, with his “government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem,” immediately proposes the concept of government as a service, and then promptly reports that it would be a good idea to imprison more people for tax evasion and introduce total income declaration. So, Zelensky is certainly not a convinced libertarian; he is an obvious populist trying to guess the demand of the target audience to gain maximum support.

What do I see as the merit of Zolotoryov, Balashov, Yurovsky, and even the—heaven forbid—late Sherstnyov? It is that they, and many other Ukrainians, broadcast the libertarian agenda so loudly and convincingly that the populist Zelensky believed: this is the people’s demand, and this is what I will latch onto. Zelensky, having no distinct program of his own, is an amplifier of someone else’s agenda. Yes, his microphone captures noise along with the signal, introduces its own distortions, and then delivers something close to a cacophony to the public. But he draws attention to the libertarian doctrine itself, and after that, interested people can already bend the ears of others and explain that taxes are theft, the state is a gangster, and this is how ancap works—take it and use it.

In Russia, however, Vladimir Popov asks an interesting question in his channel. Generally, the channel is mostly dedicated to weapons, and I love it dearly, but opinions on a wide variety of topics are found there. Vladimir asks: how is it that when Enteo says he is a libertarian, everyone brushes it off as something you’d expect from a fool. But when people say Zelensky is a libertarian, everyone rejoices wildly that Ukraine succeeded. What is the libertarianism of Zelensky, how does he differ from Enteo, and what did Ukraine succeed in?

Zelensky, unlike Enteo, does not practice direct aggressive violence, declares a desire to end the war, and defends the desire of Ukrainians to live their own private lives. And if the statement “Enteo is a libertarian” evokes nervous laughter and a response of “why don’t you call the Tsapkovs libertarians too,” here it is more of a shrug and a thoughtful “well, in some ways—yes.”

So, it makes sense for Ukrainian minarchists to express joy and start broadcasting something like “Hooray, Zelensky is a libertarian, which means he must lower taxes, reduce regulations, carry out decentralization, and privatize state enterprises. Show us the scoundrel who dares to hinder our beloved Mr. President in these libertarian endeavors, and we will cover them in shame.”

The same applies in Russia: if Putin says he is a libertarian, the reaction will be like it was for Enteo. If Navalny says he is a libertarian, it makes sense to express joy and bring the good news to the city and the world: finally, we have reached Navalny, he has become imbued with libertarianism, renounced the minimum wage and other leftism, and will now change the economic block of the program—forward, Navalny to the Duma, and so on.

And yet, Ukraine has finally gotten its libertarian president!

Remember, a long time ago, I rejoiced along with you that a libertarian ran for president of Ukraine? In the elections, Gennady Balashov received some ridiculously low numbers of support, partly because his electorate went to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And, as it turned out, not in vain! A representative of Zelenskyy in the Rada just stated that his “Servant of the People” party will run in the parliamentary elections with a libertarian program.

Of course, judging by current polls, the chances of the libertarian party of Ukraine obtaining an absolute majority in the Rada are slim, and they will have to form a coalition, but slow and steady wins the race; this is already significantly more than one could have hoped for. I congratulate our neighbors on this stroke of luck; the cat that came out of the bag turned out to be exactly the right kind of cat.

Is it okay to punch someone in the face if they threw shit at you?

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, you are only secondarily concerned with how a proper ancap should appropriately react to such a thing during an ancap (the correct answer: it’s not mandatory, provided you see an opportunity to hold the attacker accountable while maintaining greater dignity). More likely, you want to understand what a specific Svetov could have opposed against a specific attack in a specific Putinist Kazan.

And here, of course, it is important to have accompaniment. Since such symbolic actions, logically, may be recorded on video by the attackers’ accomplices, it is primarily important not to give them the opportunity to obtain footage that portrays the victim in an even more unflattering light, or worse, provides grounds for criminal charges. Therefore, the object of the attack must not chase anyone or attack anyone.

Meanwhile, a private individual who happens to be a witness to the attack by pure chance could well catch up to the attacker, detain them, and take a close-up photo; after that, it would be possible to sue them, as a photo is usually sufficient nowadays to establish identity through open sources. Of course, in Russia, and especially in sultanates like the one in Kazan, the investigation could easily fail to find the suspect, even if their full name, address, and phone number are handed to them on a silver platter, and the case would remain open against unidentified persons. After all, there has been no news regarding the investigation of the attack on Svetov in another sultanate—Kemerovo. But if people with authority were working there, then here the attackers are quite vulnerable. And (finally answering the direct question) after it turns out that it is impossible to legally hold them accountable, you can—and it is even highly desirable to—beat their faces. But this should not be done by Svetov, but by some unidentified persons who are in no way connected to the incident and simply learned about it from open sources. Well, what can you do; some people don’t like political activists, and some don’t like thugs.

without a vest(((

What about water supply and housing and communal services in a free market?

анонимный вопрос

Let me talk only about water supply so as not to dilute, pardon the pun, the topic.

To provide a city dweller with water, it is necessary to:

  • find a water source
  • extract the water
  • deliver the water to the consumer

For all of this to work in a free market, each of these stages must be able to be carried out without coercion and bring profit to the person who carries it out. Now, let’s go through the points.

Find a water source

Given the presence of bodies of water, this is a relatively simple task, so let’s consider a more difficult case: searching for an artesian basin. To carry out this work, it is necessary to hire a specialized organization that will deploy its recording equipment on the ground, use it to obtain data from depth, process it, and draw conclusions about where the boundary of the basin is and, therefore, what the water reserves are. That is, it is necessary to reach an agreement with the owners of the land where the survey will be conducted, pay them the agreed compensations, and carry out the exploration. This task is not unsolvable.

In Russia, where all subsoil belongs to the state and land can belong to private individuals, geological explorers pay landowners for land damage, and the profit will ultimately go to whoever acquired a license for extraction from the state. In a free market, it would more likely be like in the USA, where subsoil rights belong to the landowners, meaning they are even more interested in the exploration of the subsoil beneath them. Also, as far as I could understand, the data obtained during exploration possess a certain redundancy, and therefore the disagreement of some landowners or the impossibility of surveying due to the location of buildings on the land will not significantly hinder obtaining a result. In other words, at this stage there are no particular difficulties for the market—there are ordinary entrepreneurial risks, where the money for exploration is paid, but no basin is found.

Extract the water

Here, again, the greatest theoretical difficulty is the situation involving an artesian basin. The thing is that it is usually large enough that the water intake wells exploiting it can be located on the land of different owners. If there are many consumers and little water, it is important to prevent the tragedy of the commons, otherwise the source will not be able to replenish naturally due to excessive extraction.

Several such cases are analyzed in detail by Elinor Ostrom in the book “Governing the Commons”, where she presents the main principles that extraction organizations must adhere to in order to prevent the degradation of the resource. Here, they will need a fixed agreement on water extraction norms, a monitoring body, and the ability to stop abuses, using a graduated system of fines. Moreover, interestingly, it is very important that there be a possibility for contract enforcement, but no less important that no state attempts to interfere in the process of concluding the contract itself. That is, for the confident resolution of such types of property conflicts, the existence of a developed free market is not just desirable, but absolutely vital.

Deliver water to the consumer

The question of who will lay and repair the water pipeline is similar to the question of who will build roads. Roads are built by those who need them, namely the owners of the real estate to which the road leads, because it increases their value. In the same way, a water pipeline passing through a plot of land increases its value, because it means that a water-consuming facility can be built on the land and then quickly and easily connected to the water supply.

So the picture here will be roughly the same as at the exploration stage. Either the landowners pay for the pipes on their land themselves, or, at least, they grant the water supply organization permission to lay the pipes, for money or free of charge—depending on what they agree upon.

Summary

Roughly the same approach can be applied to other infrastructure objects and other spheres of housing and communal services. The process of providing a service is broken down into stages, each of which must bring profit. At each stage, property conflicts may arise, which must be resolved by concluding contracts, and these contracts will either provide direct mutual benefit, such as a land lease agreement for laying communications, or be the result of a compromise, such as an agreement on water extraction quotas. And all these complexities, of course, do not compare to the complexities of organizing the same thing through central planning mechanisms—that is where the task is truly solved haphazardly: it consumes tax money and leaves the consumer dissatisfied.