Sealand and its oddities

Since I’ve started reviewing recent articles, I’ll mention one more. Some bands are one-hit wonders, and for a long time, Evgeny Kvasov was the author of only one hit article for me — “Explaining the Roads”. But today he revealed a new unexpected side of himself by participating in the release of the article about Sealand.

The article, in particular, includes an interview with Prince Michael I, and I have a few questions regarding it. The Prince cites the production of souvenirs as the principality’s main source of income, complains about the large number of counterfeits, and even claims that copyright is a blessing, although he positions himself as a libertarian. How copyright helped him remains completely unclear.

The interview also states that despite numerous requests to visit Sealand, the principality is closed to tourists, although anyone can admire it from the sea. The only justification provided for this is a small team. A very strange excuse, a very strange business model. To suffer from counterfeit merchandise, yet not utilize the one resource that cannot be counterfeited — the sovereign territory of Sealand itself…

There are many things in the world that I don’t understand, and now, after reading the article, one more has been added. A principality that managed to defend itself in a direct military clash with Great Britain leads a pitiful existence instead of being a flagship of freedom on the seas. Well, anyway. I can’t answer every question; sometimes, on the contrary, I have to ask them.

Crises. Where to lay some straw?

Freedom pride, which I have mentioned here before, published an article on their VK page “How Not to Bring Back 2008”, where they briefly outline the Austrian theory of the business cycle (thanks!), and then move on to explain the real business cycle theory, which in the author’s presentation essentially claims that no cycles exist, only random shocks—basically, sometimes a black swan just craps on your business from the sky. That’s all there is to it, and there’s no need to ponder where these swans come from; it doesn’t matter.

Of course, such an approach seems insufficiently satisfying for something claiming the status of a theory. The Austrian approach clearly identifies the cause of cycles: credit expansion by banks operating under fractional reserves and the regulation of the discount rate by central banks. Without specifying the causes, it becomes something like stating a death was caused by the flu, while the deceased was over a hundred years old and their body was completely worn out. Had they not died of the flu today, they would have died of a heart attack tomorrow. In other words, the specific black swan is less important than the systemic factor of old age.

However, within the framework of the article, it is indeed not so important why cycles happen; it focuses not on how to get rid of credit expansion, but on what allows the economy of one country or another to weather crises more easily. Accumulated statistics by country show that countries with free economies endure crises much more easily, even though it would seem that the most terrifying bubbles inflate in the financial markets there, and they should be worse off. But that’s not the case; the market levels the structure of supply and demand much faster than any dirigiste government measures.

That is to say, even if one considers either business cycles or simply random shocks to be inevitable, a country can quite possibly minimize their consequences simply by having a liberal economy. It is for the sake of this optimistic conclusion that I recommend this somewhat controversial article.

Comparative growth index of relatively less economically free and relatively more economically free countries in 2001-2017 (below the 2001 median and above the 2001 median, respectively). For 16 consecutive years, freer countries have shown higher average growth rates. The greatest difference is observed in the crisis year of 2009 (-0.3% for freer countries versus -2.8% for unfree countries)

Extraterritorial identity. The example of the Netherlands.

Bitarch’s Column

Critics of libertarianism often express the idea that libertarians (both ancaps and minarchists) are very similar to Marxists. In Marx’s teaching, the base (economic relations) plays a decisive role in the development of society, while the superstructure (culture, religion, morality) merely follows it and has no particular influence. This is often said by right-wing nationalists and conservatives; for example, Olgerd Semyonov in his stream criticizes libertarianism precisely from these positions.

Whatever one may say, there is a grain of truth in this criticism. Human behavior is not determined exclusively by economic incentives. German Sterligov is unlikely to want to sell his bread to a gay person, even if the latter is willing to pay a “cosmic” price for this obviously overpriced product. Similarly, a believing Christian would not serve in the Swedish army for any amount of money if he were asked to participate in a hypothetical Swedish war against Nigeria, launched to support LGBT rights in the latter. This is also seen as a weakness of ancap and minarchism—an ideologically cohesive opponent may have a strong advantage in a war against an economically motivated libertarian army. Of course, this would only happen if they gained possession of modern high-tech weaponry. But, as we know, even the “barmaleis” from a certain well-known banned organization learned how to manufacture UAVs. Technology, although slowly, inevitably flows to “backward” peoples.

But identity does not have to be territorial. Under panarchy, when there is a free choice of the set of rules by which a person will live within an ECU, extraterritorial identity (the sense of belonging to one’s ECU) will be even stronger than the national identity (the sense of belonging to one’s ethno-territorial nation-state) so beloved by right-wing conservatives.

A good example is the history of pillarization in the Netherlands (Holland). At the beginning of the 20th century, Abraham Kuyper and his religious-conservative party “ARP” (Anti-Revolutionary Party) came to power, and they began to implement the ideology of “sphere sovereignty.” The goal of the reform was to stop the growing influence of leftist ideas by dividing society into so-called pillars (English: “pillar”, Dutch: “zuilen”). In terms understandable to us, a minarchist state was created where almost all state functions, except for the security functions, were transferred to the pillars (which could be called proto-ECUs). The pillars were completely extraterritorial and included people with specific political-religious views. There were four: Catholic, Protestant, Social-Democratic, and Liberal. Each of them had its own schools, trade unions (which regulated labor relations at the time), media, and healthcare system. Confederations of entrepreneurs were also included among them.

After World War II, leftist forces devoted enormous resources to the depillarization of Dutch society. Given the high popularity of ideas of equality in the post-war period and rapid economic growth, the functions of the pillars gradually shifted to the central government, and society began to unify. Nevertheless, remnants of pillarization exist in the Netherlands to this day. The sense of belonging to one’s political-religious group could not be completely destroyed, no matter how hard the social democrats and euro-liberals tried.

What conclusions can be drawn from all this? First—under panarchy, it is very likely that there will be a division of ECUs based on political-religious-cultural principles. People will feel a real belonging to their group and a willingness to defend it not only for money. Second—no matter in what form minarchism exists, it will eventually lead back to a “big state.” Even “panarchic minarchism” proved unstable. If Abraham Kuyper had gone further, transferring the security functions to the pillars and thereby fully completing the transformation of the state into a full-fledged panarchy, leftist forces would not have been able to impose uniform values on the entire society again.

Commentary by Ancap-chan

As far as I understand from the provided Wikipedia article, pillarization was undermined not only from above, through the desire of politicians to expand into new electoral groups, but also from below, since far from everyone wished to live in a strictly segregated society where you study at the school of your pillar, spend your leisure time within your pillar, and even make daily purchases within the same pillar. Then two compatriots accidentally meet, for example, abroad, and are surprised to discover that people in neighboring pillars are also human, and then, for example, an inter-pillar marriage occurs, and that is where the problems arise.

And delegating security functions to the pillars would not have helped. During the Second World War, resistance to the Nazis was pillarized. I would not be surprised if service to the Reich was also pillarized. The erosion of extraterritorial identities occurred not because of the forced absorption of some by others, but because of the weakening of contradictions in society that no longer required the maintenance of strict, permanent internal boundaries. Now, by the way, pillarization may find a second wind, as a powerful Muslim pillar is already de facto operating in these countries, just not formally organized at an official level.

In general, the idea of panarchy is indeed quite organic for Europe with its rich experience of religious wars—that is, wars between specifically extraterritorial identities. Russia has no such experience. Although, for instance, in Dagestan, some rudiments of pillarization are present—too many nationalities on a tiny patch of land with a high population density. As for the prospects of living peacefully in neighboring jurisdictions with those who, for example, are nostalgic for the USSR, that personally seems unlikely to me. Although recent debates between a nationalist and a communist moderated by a libertarian show that at least some semblance of dialogue is beginning.

So I would summarize more simply: do not stop people from finding ways to live peacefully with each other, and they will pleasantly surprise you.

P.S. Bitarch disagrees with a number of points in my commentary and intends to release an article on the doctrine of deterrence soon, where the issue of mutual coercion to peaceful coexistence will be examined in more detail.

Who will protect children from violence (on the part of parents)? How can a child prove their agency?

Immanuel Kant

In fact, with the same justification, we could ask: “Who will protect the individual from state violence? How can a person prove their agency?”

In response to state violence, a person can resist directly, attempt to appeal to one branch of government regarding violence committed by another branch, flee to another state, or to a place where state orders do not operate. Finally, a person can resign themselves, repent, and become an exemplary citizen so that the state violence directed at them becomes more or less tolerable. None of this will help them prove their agency to the state, but it may somehow influence the severity of the violence.

As is easy to see, a child can do exactly the same in relation to their parents. They can fight with their parents and even kill them, complain to the father about the mother or to the mother about the father, run away to other people, or simply try to survive on the street. Finally, they can become an exemplary child and fulfill all parental whims. None of this helps them prove their agency within the existing orders, but it may somehow influence the severity of the violence they are subjected to.

The power of the state over its subject and the power of parents over a child are equally total in the absence of external factors. To protect human dignity from the power of the state, people organize into a civil society that directly opposes the state, both using tools provided by the state and through direct moral pressure on individual state representatives (we leave political terrorism outside the scope of this consideration, although it glares quite menacingly from the sidelines). Similarly, the family’s power over a child is limited by society, both through official channels, such as complaints to state authorities, and through direct moral pressure on the parents (methods of physical coercion glare menacingly from outside the scope of this issue).

To summarize. The power of one human over another is dangerous and undesirable in itself. Wherever possible, the “ruler-subject” relationship should be transitioned into relationships between negotiating subjects. Wherever this is not possible—for example, due to the weakly expressed agency of one of the parties—power can and must be limited through pressure from other subjects who form public opinion.

Of course, public opinion should not be idealized—it is a tool for interference in private relationships by third parties; it is not for nothing that public opinion is often called the opinion of those who weren’t asked. Libertarianism provides the principle by which the legitimacy of public opinion’s interference in private relationships can be determined: the now-clichéd NAP. The more obvious its violation within the family, the more the opinion of those who weren’t asked becomes sought after.

If animals do not possess agency, can they simply be killed without violating the NAP if they live on territory belonging to you—for example, in a zoo?

Harambe

It is clear that you are unlikely to be interested in the legitimacy of me killing a mosquito on my own territory, for example. Moreover, you would hardly notice if I killed a mosquito on someone else’s territory, unless I was explicitly told that it is a valuable mosquito in private ownership and must not be killed.

It is also not certain that you would be very interested in the legitimacy of killing various meat animals in slaughterhouses for the purpose of subsequent meat sale, although there are people who do contest it. Unfortunately for them: all this meat livestock lives only as long as its breeding is profitable. No profit—no livestock. The population of cows, pigs, and other rabbits will decrease sharply, and those excess to the capacity of the natural habitat will either starve to death, or people will have to carefully eat them without reproducing the existing herds. As soon as humanity manages to set up the production of synthetic meat that is cheaper and tastier than the natural kind, this exact scenario will happen: no one is interested in cleaning up manure when a steak is printed on a printer.

But, judging by your nickname, you are not talking about animals in general, but about rare ones, whose natural habitat is negligible, and who live almost exclusively in zoos, primarily so that people pay money for the right to look at them. These animals are luxury items, and, of course, no one will kill them without serious grounds. The accident with your namesake was a situation where everyone involved suffered: the child who was injured, the mother who experienced serious stress, the zoo, which, to avoid the costs associated with the possible death of the child, was forced to destroy a valuable animal, and finally, Harambe himself.

We do not know how soon zoos will stop being profitable because people will find it repulsive to look at animals in cages. When that happens, nature reserves will be the only places left for animals to live, and people themselves will visit them in cages, or some other way that does not violate the animals’ privacy. In general, the more resources a human is able to obtain without serious transformations of nature, the less their need for those very transformations. In a world where all of a human’s material needs are satisfied by a thought, practically the entire planet will be in the power of virgin nature. That is the kind of harmless animal we are.

Ukraine as a trendsetter

Until now, this predominantly theoretical channel had only one post dedicated to the Ukrainian presidential elections, where I informed readers about the nomination of libertarian Gennady Balashov. But, as we all saw, a slightly different person won in the first round—Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the main character of the series “Servant of the People” about a populist’s journey from the people to the presidency.

If the world’s leading movie empire keeps even a slight eye on foreign election technologies, then I think a decision is already ripening in the depths of the Democratic Party to suggest that Kevin Spacey, the main character of the first five seasons of “House of Cards,” run in the primaries. Who, if not him, is capable of defeating Trump in 2020?

But those are overseas affairs, not very interesting. Meanwhile, here in Russia, and moreover, among Russian libertarians, we have our own professional screenwriter. How about filming a TV series “The New Federative Treaty” by 2024? I usually get lost in front of the camera, but here I’d even agree to an episodic role as “the girl with the sign.” I’ve already thought of the sign. It will feature Zalina Marshenkulova and the caption “Federation Pose: people on top.”

By the way, about the signs. The episode, of course, should be filmed at Lenin Square in Novosibirsk (the central square where almost no one is allowed except communists), and this is also an interesting technology that I haven’t heard of before. Imagine the announcements: “The filming crew of the series ‘The New Federative Treaty’ invites those wishing to appear as extras in the role of rally participants. Filming will take place then and there; the square accommodates up to 10,000 people. We cannot provide payment, but every participant will receive a souvenir badge. Please bring your own posters, flags, and other attributes.”

*Switch from the Moscow bottle to the federalization of Siberia*

How will accidents be resolved in ancap? For example, while defending myself from a bandit, I accidentally hit my neighbor and killed him with my automatic rifle.

анонимный вопрос

In such murky situations, it always makes sense to start by identifying the circle of interested parties: representatives of the deceased neighbor, representatives of the deceased bandits, surviving gang members, and perhaps other persons whose property was also at risk in this shootout. Then, the picture of what happened is reconstructed, making it clear whether you acted in collusion with the bandits, the extent of each gang member’s involvement, how the neighbor happened to end up in the line of fire, how you happened to hit him, and who ultimately suffered what property damage.

Next, the claims of the various parties in the proceedings against each other are outlined, the court issues verdicts on the validity of these claims, and then bargaining ensues until it is fixed who owes whom and how much. The court essentially becomes the moderator of this complex dispute, which, although it has the deciding vote, is interested in ensuring that, upon the conclusion of the dispute, no mutual claims remain if possible.

It is clear that in most such cases, the person who accidentally shot an innocent bystander will incur significant costs. It is clear that these costs can be partially offset by the attacker’s assets. It is clear that in a situation where the killed neighbor turned out to be of absolutely no interest to anyone, everyone will simply be very upset by such a fuck-up, and the matter may be reduced to ritual sacrifices like “lighting a candle for the repose of the soul every week and paying for commemorative prayers for ten years.” Feeling guilt for a misfortune that one inadvertently caused is normal for a human, and the market will certainly provide ways to make amends, as long as there is an obvious demand for such things.

*A strange way for atheists to recover costs, even in the case where the subject to whom they are being paid is already gone.*

Subjective Ethical Utilitarianism

I would like to recommend a very interesting article written byCreadon and published in the Freedom pride public page on the wretched VKontakte. The article brings ethics closer to economics within the framework of the general principle of methodological subjectivism, which is precisely why it is valuable, since economic theory is already very well developed and derived quite rigorously, whereas libertarian ethics has been attempted to be built on all sorts of strange foundations. Here, the foundation is reliable. I will provide a fragment as a teaser:

Let’s be blunt: nobody owes anyone anything. Instead of dividing people into debtors and beneficiaries, we will consider all human actions in a more general form — as a balance between rewards and costs. And questions of debt will remain a special case of this balance.
This can be briefly characterized as “subjective utilitarianism“. Subjective because it views people as subjects of action and takes into account their goals and means. Utilitarianism because its goal is maximum efficiency and maximum utility. This concept has great potential because, based on the same game theory, the most efficient strategies will win in repeated dilemmas. Moreover, “utility” itself has a very important property — within science, it is quite easily integrated into formal systems and exists there as an axiomatic crutch. Relying on this crutch, we can build further analysis around the system of utilitarianism without getting stuck in a dead end.

Imagine the interaction of individuals as a huge game where all resources are limited, and there are no hundred-percent guarantees or unconditional boons falling from the sky. The only way to obtain resources in such a system is by completing tasks. Each task has two parameters: the price (or cost) we pay for its execution and the result, which is our reward. When the reward exceeds the costs, we take on such a project. When the costs exceed the reward, we leave it. And yet, since human predictive abilities are not perfect, we sometimes miss the opportunity to participate in a profitable project. Or, conversely, we take on a doomed cause and incur losses.

Even if we add to these reflections some higher authority (for example, God), who will punish us for transgressions according to His principles, the central idea of the model will not go anywhere. We still have tasks that have their own price and their own reward. The price of an apple could be climbing a tree or going to the store. The price of sinning, say, committing adultery, is eternity in Hell.

It is important to understand that obligation is someone’s subjective perspective. In the cashier’s opinion, you must pay for the goods. In your mother’s opinion, you ought to visit her more often. In the opinion of the public (despite the vagueness of this category, nevertheless), you must observe generally accepted norms of behavior. In the opinion of the state, you must pay taxes. And the final decision on all these dilemmas, regardless of the circumstances, is made by the acting subject himself.

You. It is for you to decide whom you owe and what.

Anarcho-statism as the highest stage of ancap

Many people have insisted to me that a stateless society is impossible due to human nature. Man is a natural etatist; he always seeks a leader to follow, and in the absence of one, becomes one himself. This is confirmed by experiments on rats, the Stanford experiment, and many other independent studies, and it fully corresponds to the reality we observe. The time has come to admit that these guys are completely right; enough denying the obvious.

But who said that the current leaders are the only possible ones and there is no alternative? The “new transparency” that Ekaterina Schulmann tirelessly drones on about in her lectures clearly demonstrates to us the wretchedness of their motives and the shallowness of their minds. They are no better than we are, and we are no less worthy of ruling. The time has come for each of us to release our inner Leviathan!

It is the Leviathan, as Thomas Hobbes quite rightly notes, that is the only thing keeping humanity from a war of all against all. So, can two hundred Leviathans really save such a vast humanity? No, we need more Leviathans, otherwise the bright anarchist ideal will remain unattainable! Everyone reading this appeal must immediately declare themselves the authorized and sovereign ruler of their entire neighborhood, demand signs of respect from everyone around them, and begin collecting taxes, for it is precisely thanks to taxes that the construction of civilization is possible. Who, if not states, grants people all public goods? There are not enough public goods, which means we need more states!

Those who do not follow the appeal, fearing to recognize their own sovereignty, will only prove that they are unworthy of it. Well, there will always be those who take them under their benevolent patronage and make them their kind taxpayer. Thus, from shitty democracy, bypassing the pointless intermediate stage of monarchy, we will return once again to the ideal of natural aristocracy, in full accordance with the teachings of Hans-Hermann Hoppe—but on a new dialectical level, in full accordance with the teachings of Marx and Engels.

With this manifesto, I announce the founding of sovereign Ancapistan, the best of states. Bitcoins are declared the only legal means of payment in Ancapistan. Taxes are paid to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Those who do not pay the tax will be left in Putin’s Russia. Is that really what you want?

Happy April 1st!

How to achieve ancap if states, and not ancap, developed from the state of nature?

It is clear that all states cannot be destroyed overnight, but then how? What should guarantee the stability of ancap?

анонимный вопрос

States evolved from a state of nature because plunder proved more profitable than non-violent methods of enrichment. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then; people are becoming wealthier, as a result of which greed for preservation becomes more characteristic for them than greed for acquisition. That is, not the desire to snatch what belongs to others, but the strive to preserve one’s own. If one attempts to snatch what belongs to others, fraud becomes preferable to direct violence.

So the path to ancap is quite clear: technological progress, an increase in labor productivity, the emergence of free market tools that do not require centralized trusted intermediaries—and on one hand, we will have less and less moral justification for the forced redistribution of resources, and on the other—less and less technical feasibility for it.

Of course, the scenario where “all states disappeared at once” is quite strange; it is even difficult for me to imagine how that could happen without reptilians. The foundations of the state will be eroded gradually, as is actually happening now. It is difficult to say exactly which path humanity will take to reach ancap. The direct and clear path of minarchists, using ordinary tools of political reform? Progressive offshoring with a transition to panarchy? Harsh agorism with a heavy mix of crypto-anarchism? Seasteading and other Liberlands—that is, the construction of anarcho-capitalism through the occupation of no-man’s lands, with subsequent replication of the experience?

Any of these paths would satisfy me; there are no fundamental, insoluble disagreements between the different routes, for the state lives in people’s minds, and exactly how to expel it from there is, in many ways, a matter of taste.

What guarantees the stability of ancap? Only economics. The less profitable plunder is compared to non-violent methods, the lower the probability of the return of systemic plunder, i.e., the state. In the form of marginal practices, it will not pose a serious danger.

Economics and rhetoric. Interest and morality. Being and consciousness. These are mutually influencing things. Based on bare economic incentives, the state will not collapse for a long time and will persist simply by virtue of tradition. Based on bare rhetoric, the abolition of the state is unlikely to be stable: a new lucky plunderer will come and declare an era of prosperity under the shadow of the paternal care of the great steersman. In short, both factors are important.

Ancap-chan

I answer questions on ancap, libertarianism, economics, politics, ethics, law and occasionally on abstract topics.

Автор: Анкап-тян