Автор: Анкап-тян

The Achilles’ heel of territorial communities

Bitarch’s Column

Mikhail Svetov and many other libertarians often propose the model of territorial communities. These are, in essence, ordinary states (or federal subjects) with a territorial monopoly, but created “from scratch” by a group of settlers who share certain values.

Besides the obvious drawbacks of a state with a territorial monopoly, there is another very important problem in this model that, for some reason, is not publicized. The essence of it is that the values of the founding generation may not be passed down to descendants (this is practically guaranteed to happen, if not in the second generation, then in the fifth). Even when a small number of people in this community deviate from the founders’ values, the community government will have to take them into account, diluting the ideological integrity of the original project and turning the community into an ordinary modern state.

Don’t believe it will happen? Look at the history of the USA! There, too, the colonies were initially settled on religious and ideological principles. Modern states have preserved practically nothing of this, having turned into the same kind of centralized state that the colonists once fled from in Europe.

Ancap-chan’s Comment

Over time, any social associations—whether states, communities, enterprises, political parties, or interest clubs—either collapse or change beyond recognition, preserving at best their name. Transience in time can be called the Achilles’ heel of any entity existing in time, and territorial communities do not stand out from the general background. It is enough for the community’s founders that this community exists for some time and serves the interests of its members to a greater extent than the surrounding environment; and if in the future those born into this community find another environment more to their liking—well, so be it, and there is no reason to decide for the descendants, as they are surely not any stupider.

The community occupies a territory

Foundations of Panarchism

Michael Rozeff

Translation: Egor Vasilchenko, edited by Ancap-tyan

Original publication: July 1, 2009

Panarchism is a new political philosophy based on and extending the concept of the consent of the governed, the roots of which trace back, primarily, to John Locke. The idea of government based on the consent of those governed permeated revolutionary America. Evidence of this can be found in Article 6 of the “Virginia Declaration of Rights” and in the “Essex Results,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin, who wrote: “In a free society, rulers are servants of the people, and the people are their master and sovereign,” and even the Declaration of Independence itself asserts that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Panarchism proposes a comprehensive expansion of freedom for the consensual choice of government in form and content. It proposes the creation of a government whose status will be agreed upon with all persons participating in its organization for themselves, and conversely, for all those who will not agree to be subject to such a government, it will not have power.

Panarchy is a form of human relations in which every person has the freedom to choose their own social and political governance without outside coercion. Panarchism means that people can freely enter into social and political relationships and freely exit them. And this means that government exists only with the consent and thanks to the consent of those whom it governs.

Panarchism gives a new understanding of who the governed are, what government represents, and what consent between the former and the latter means. This gives rise to a new concept of the non-territorial state and provides a new look at things such as power and sovereignty. By viewing government as non-territorial, panarchism shifts the emphasis of the movement for freedom from the destruction of the state, which some may prefer, to the creation and acquisition of such governments that could suit each of us.

Free people in a free society already practice, to some extent, the principles of panarchy. By personal consent, they interact with those they want to interact with (if the other person also wants to interact with them), and do not interact with those they do not want to. Their social ties change over time, by place, by duration, and in other aspects. They choose their friends, place of residence, work, hobby clubs, and church parishes based on individual wishes, doing so without social coercion. Free people form, on the basis of voluntary consent, various organizations, associations, and groups. They form sub-societies and “peoples,” representing groups of people voluntarily united by various characteristics and interests. In doing so, they at the same time create many coexisting forms of social organization and governance, the basis of which is not territorial (although, likely, it can be), but built on the interrelationships of people.

Panarchism proposes simply to extend the already existing and realized in life principles of panarchy to the state (or individual functions thereof), so that people are free to create peoples and choose their own forms of governance.

But why? Why can the desire for such changes be considered justified? Because today the possibility of consent of people is too limited to provide them with significant sovereignty. Because today the state and rulers have become the sovereigns, and the people — their servants. Because complex systems of elections and parties have reduced the role of human consent to zero. Because many potential new peoples are limited in the right to self-determination. Does freedom of choice mean — choosing when voting for one of two parties, which will govern a single monopolistic government? No, rather active consent regarding the very form, as well as the content of the governance relations, fits this definition.

Why panarchism? Because under today’s organization of governance, the state is far from our needs, and we have no right to choose its form. Because the whole planet is covered by states that too often bring injustice, threats to security, disorder, waste of resources, suffering, death, and destruction, as they have done throughout all the history of humanity. Because states and governments concentrate and increase power, using it for purposes that many of us do not share. And because today’s governments legitimize and support the contentious struggle for dominance, where the victory of one group means losses for another, a struggle that consumes more and more resources and diverts energy from productive to unproductive use.

The freedom provided by panarchy promises us hope for a better life, since it will provide the opportunity for each of us to participate in social and political relationships based on our own choice and in accordance with our own beliefs. When people stop putting up with governments that only worsen their situation, the free choice of governments will provide a kind of system of checks and balances in case of governmental failures and errors — it is precisely the absence of this that is the most critical missing part of the current political system.

Panarchy presupposes the existence of many societies and sub-societies in one country, region, or area. There should not be a single sovereign power extending the effect of the law everywhere, without the consent of those people whom it tries to govern. In panarchy, numerous and diverse sources of self-sufficient sovereignty exist side by side with each other, drawing their legitimacy from the consent of those who are ready to live by the set of governance relations they propose. At the same time, people will be able to voluntarily join diverse governance associations, different from those that on a geographical basis are prescribed to them by authority.

When the American revolutionaries called for the consent of the government and the governed, they were paving the way for a non-territorial state structure, but at the same time, they were veering off this path. Just as they avoided the question of slavery, they avoided the question of how a legitimate government and people are formed, how consent between them is determined, and the people’s right to secede. In its Article 14, the “Virginia Declaration of Rights” sought to “preserve the sovereignty of Virginia over its restless, extensive western counties.” It proclaimed that “the people have a right to a single government,” and that therefore “no separate or independent government can be created or established within the government of Virginia.” This particular territorial concept of the state was justified by a false appeal to the mystical “right to a single government,” the goal of which was to prevent the formation of West Virginia. About 85 years later, West Virginia, which for many decades had had plenty of reasons not to obey Richmond, was finally able to secede.

Since then, little has changed. Despite hundreds of separatist movements across the world, the idea of the territorial unity of the state has not changed. And indeed, most of such movements themselves perceive the state as attached to a specific territory. American federalism became nationalism. Modern governments sacrifice society, basing their claim to legitimate power not so much on the consent of the governed, as on territorial claims.

The idea of government must be separated from the idea of the territorial state and from the notion that the government of such a state is everything a government can be and what it is. Since the state is single, territorial, and uses violent methods, due to this idea, the opinion is formed that government must necessarily possess all the aforementioned characteristics. The territorial concept supports the power of current states over the territories they occupy. It devalues the opinion of the people and strips it of real significance, replacing it with manipulations with votes, party platforms, lobbying, gerrymandering, force, and the monetary flows of election campaigns. The idea of territorial rule without the consent of the people condemns humanity to life without one of the most important freedoms — the freedom to choose one’s government.

It is mistaken to equate government with the executive and administrative apparatuses of the monopolistic state. When this is done by supporters of the state, they leave no or almost no room for those who do not agree with them and want to live with their own structure of governance. When this is done by its opponents — they also act against government, from a position that does not allow those who want to have various forms of their own government, to realize their choice.

Government is social coordination of personal human relationships. Government is inevitable to the extent to which the interaction of people with each other is inevitable. Opponents of government, if they do not avoid all social interaction, will be able to do without government no more than statists. But the necessity of government does not mean that it must be coercive and territorial. We have an alternative to living in a single territorial state that constantly creates and imposes all kinds of rules for each of us. Panarchy is this alternative.

We ourselves govern vast areas of human activity — with the consent of people, without being tied to territory, and without a state. It has been so throughout all history — it is so now. People in society create systems of governance from the most diverse and numerous sources, which can be moral and ethical norms, customs, precedents, rules, principles, manners, religion, treaties, agreements, concepts, and contracts, and implement them with the help of various social mechanisms, institutions, and organizations, including the family, associations, churches, schools, corporations, and business firms. Society, in this sense being a multitude of separate interconnected and diverse societies, already reflects a high degree of panarchy. Societies everywhere already use panarchy as a beneficial principle of social organization and order.

Panarchism presupposes the extension of panarchy even further. It means a world in which people will be able to live, choosing for themselves governance relations at their own discretion, and allowing neighbors to do the same. A society with such freedom will hold together, maintaining order, just as it has always happened: through a complex network of common values, beliefs, lifestyle, language, and other similar traits, acting through the personal interests of each person, embodied in individual, joint, and collective efforts. It will be even more cohesive than today’s society, since the imposed government, which today creates the ground for political and economic confrontations, uprisings, and civil wars, will be eliminated.

Different people understand differently what independence and freedom are, and even when they agree with each other, they put different meanings into the concept of freedom. One woman might choose to work for another person for a salary, while another — perceive wage labor as slavery. One man might voluntarily join the army, another — consider the draft slavery. These different views on good and bad social organization and government can coexist in panarchy. Freedom and government are not at opposite poles. The abolition of government in itself will not bring freedom for all, the abolition of government and the replacement of it with one’s own, personal vision of freedom also will not be able to do this. Freedom for all presupposes the possibility for everyone to choose their own government, one whose structure does not contradict their views. In panarchy, men and women are free to be unfree (in the eyes of others) to any desired degree. They can enter into any governance relations they want. This separates panarchy from those political concepts that deny the right of a person to choose a government and a state. Panarchists do not seek to destroy governments that others want. They do not deny others the freedom to be unfree. However, they deny others (people, governments, or states) the freedom to make them unfree.

As soon as we reflect on the question of what government is, we will be able to leave behind the idea of “some” government and a “specific” government. Government consists of a set of functions that can be clearly defined. The choice is not between today’s government and none; there are many intermediate options.

National governments took from local communities such important functions as the protection of the elderly, aid to the needy, and medical care. They did this with the help of the convoluted rule of the majority and voting procedures designed to bypass the real consent of the governed. Governments throughout the world often suppress various minorities. The introduction of nationwide laws discriminates and suppresses all those who do not agree with them and do not want to trust their government with the decision of some critically important issues. A medical assistance program, for example, includes the seizure and redistribution of wealth. Such a program could well be non-territorial and consensual. Mr. K. may subscribe to such a program and relate to the government that will deduct contributions for it from his salary, while Mr. D. may not do all this. And they can at the same time live next door.

Many of today’s government functions can remain for those who are ready to use them, but become voluntary for those who do not want to. The main idea here is not to destroy government, but to make it voluntary. A huge number of regulations of labor relations, energy, education, healthcare, and social security are such that one neighbor can peacefully live without some of them, even if another, conversely, wants to follow them. Instead of trying to cancel a medical assistance program or convince voters to vote for it, accepting the rules of the game of a monopolistic and territorial government, panarchism approaches the problem of lack of consent and the unjust power of government from another side. Let those who want this program — receive it, and those who do not — be free from it. Panarchism stands on the ground of high morality. Why should those who do not want to participate in a program be involved in it by those who want it? How is this different from forcing everyone to belong to one church? What consent of the governed can there be when we are driven, whether we want it or not, into programs that affect our life?

Coordination problems related to human interaction will not disappear. Governance reform, even in those cases where it is not related to coordination, can be sufficiently difficult. Panarchism does not deny these difficulties. But it offers a fair and peaceful alternative, which can be achieved peacefully, and in which the state renounces its territorial claims. One can move toward it slowly, step by step, or through sharp leaps. Most likely, consensual and non-consensual governments will exist side by side with each other for some time. Changes, small and large, are unpredictable. People themselves must ensure their advancement and accomplishment. Every step, peaceful and non-aggressive, that people take toward a life with their own and voluntary government, will be a step on the path to a more complete panarchy and greater freedom.

I express my gratitude for the helpful comments of Adam Notte and John Zewb, and I take full responsibility for all errors that I may have made here.

Parasite or symbiont?

Today I was in Bangkok, at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha. There is nothing to do there: the Buddha is small, photography is forbidden, talking is forbidden; you can only stand and think about the meaning of all existence. That is what I did. I have never been into meditation, so I don’t know how similar this was to it, but at some point, I suddenly grasped the entire beautiful and amazing picture of spontaneous orders—how the simplest rules followed by people give rise to the most complex and exquisitely coordinated mechanisms of human interaction.

The state was there too, and it also appeared in the form of something very similar to spontaneous orders. After all, it also grows out of people following fairly simple and uniform rules, but it forms the most complex and sophisticated mechanisms of robbery and deception. There were no total clichés in this revelation, such as identifying society and the state as yin and yang, eternally struggling and interpenetrating; rather, the state became increasingly indistinguishable from society.

Anyway, then I left the temple, shook myself off a bit, and began to reflect in the usual European way.

Zolotoryov defines spontaneous orders as the stable result of people observing simple rules, which is formed unintentionally and is useful for the members of society. The word “useful” in this definition smells of voluntarism, and it would be better to do without it. The state is also formed from people observing simple rules, and for some time now, the result of their observance has also become quite stable. What are these rules?

Early states were formed by following the rule “take your neighbor as an accomplice and rob the stranger.” Such states, as Zolotoryov correctly notes, usually disappeared without a trace shortly after the death of the founder, and people returned to the familiar stateless society.

Then, having established themselves where people had nowhere to flee, states mutated—that is, basically, the rule that formed them began to change. Now it became this: “there is a special breed of shepherds; they have the right to eat the sheep, but in exchange, they are destined to protect them from wolves.” To be more precise, that is how I phrased the ideological justification for the new type of state, but the rule became something like: “if you feel you have the strength to lead the herd, become the shepherd, and it is yours.”

This is an extremely stable construction that still works perfectly in paternalistic societies, and especially vividly in Thailand, where the authority of the royal power is very great, criticism of the king is unthinkable, and yet, regarding each king, people proudly tell not of what lands he annexed or how many captives participated in his triumph, but how many temples, universities, and bridges he built.

But liberal ideas ripened in European society, and the state mutated again—that is, the rule whose observance forms the new type of state changed once more. Now it sounds roughly like this: “if you can convince a sucker that you know how things should be done, then lead them.”

So here it is. The consistent observance of this rule should lead to a state that is exclusively herbivorous and, generally, harmless, because if you don’t convince the sucker that you know how things should be done, you will have to leave them alone. And if the sucker is convinced by someone else, then they are that person’s cash cow. In other words, such a rule should produce panarchy, which has been mentioned several times on this channel.

It’s just that from the time of the French Revolution until roughly the Cuban Revolution, a strange intermediate version of the rule worked: “if you have convinced enough suckers that you know how things should be done, then take them as accomplices and rob everyone as best you can.” Obviously, the resulting state turns out to be very unstable: suckers make poor accomplices, and they lose faith quite quickly—while they have to be paid an enormous amount for their complicity in the robbery. This gave rise to the total debt crisis of modern democracies, constant popular unrest over trifles that would have been completely unnoticed by the subjects of a shepherd-type state, and other symptoms of malaise.

Well, the next mutation of the state-forming idea after panarchy should logically be (okay, not logically, but in my revelation, it is exactly so) a formulation like this: “don’t treat people like suckers, and you will be able to sell them more.” And that, kids, is ancap.

Om!

Private Discrimination

A human chooses. Absolutely any human activity boils down to the fact that a person sets goals for themselves and chooses the means to achieve them. The discussion of any human activity comes down to what goals a person sets, what means they choose, what alternatives they had, what they achieved, and what they could have achieved. If a person did not make a choice, there would be no point in discussing them, let alone condemning them. The instinctive behavior of an animal or the sequence of actions of a computer program are not subjects of moral evaluation of the animal or the program—only of the people behind those actions, if they are discovered.

As long as a person makes their choice without interacting with other people, everything is simple: they carry out purposeful activity with varying degrees of success—why should we care? But when interaction begins, the choice of one person affects the interests of another. A person sets a goal, and as a means, chooses not their own actions, but the actions of other people. For this, they need these other people to set goals for themselves, the means of fulfillment for which is the very action required of them. For example, my goal is to get a cup of coffee; for this, I need the coffee shop employee to set a goal to get my money, and choose serving me a cup of coffee as the means to obtain it.

– Excuse me, but I asked for a cup!

If, instead of serving me coffee, the coffee shop employee points to a “men only” sign and refuses to take my money, it means our interaction has gone wrong, and the standard means of obtaining coffee available in my arsenal of means does not work here. I could try other means, such as persuasion, a scandal, or violence, but most likely I will prefer to choose a different goal. Either way, I will experience some frustration, and to reduce the irritation, I may choose various means, from slamming the door harder to writing an angry post on Facebook about what these men allow themselves.

Humans have a huge, powerful brain for solving complex problems of modeling surrounding reality and planning within those constructed models. Humans solve such resource-intensive tasks in order to bring the surrounding world into alignment with the constructed models, so they no longer have to solve tasks of this type but can use a ready-made solution. The predictability of the surrounding world allows a person to set more complex goals and use more complex means to achieve them. Therefore, in interacting with other people, humans strive to develop certain protocols that make human behavior predictable and, consequently, subject to planning. A “men only” sign in a coffee shop shatters this predictability. Encountering this discrimination, I will for some time expect to see signs in other establishments regarding other restrictions affecting me, so the action of even a single act of discrimination can lead to a significant deterioration in the quality of life. Especially if it is discrimination expressed in a phrase like “girl, with a look like that you should be selling seeds, not hanging out in clubs,” spoken by a club security guard.

Thus, when performing everyday interactions with other people, a person would prefer to be surrounded by soulless automatons, or at least that people behave according to simple, unified protocols. But at the same time, one must not forget that humans have a powerful brain designed to solve complex problems, and in their absence, boredom appears. To get rid of boredom, following simple unified protocols is not enough for a human; creative tasks are needed, and one way to ensure them is interaction with other people beyond standard banalities. And so, one coffee shop customer, out of boredom, starts a scandal over a trifle, while another, also out of boredom, starts flirting with the barista. At the same time, it is not clear in advance which of these entertainments the barista will perceive with greater willingness.

– Young man, was it you who snatched the vest from Mikhail Svetov?

Ultimately, human life in society boils down to the constant maintenance of an individual balance between the strive for predictability (that is, safety) and the flight from boredom. Wishes for other people will constantly vary from the demand for the most impersonal automatic service to the hope for an interesting and unpredictable individual interaction. Thus, every person expects a complete absence of discrimination from some people and at some moments, while from others they hope to receive individual attention, that is, positive discrimination, when out of all possible options the counterparty chose to interact in the desired key specifically with them. These principles work for absolutely any human community with absolutely any orders. No person can live in a society where discrimination is completely absent, and no person would want to live in a society where the right to discriminate is absolute, knowing no exceptions and backed by the unlimited use of force.

Nevertheless, everyone would prefer to live in a world where their own personal right to private discrimination was indisputable, and the right of everyone else was limited by some clear mechanisms of appeal. As a result, in a society left to its own devices, without external regulations, certain frameworks will be established in which discrimination is permissible, more or less general for all. What will these frameworks be?

Here the well-known pyramid of values comes to our aid. The more vitally necessary the counterparty assumes your need to be, the less likely it is that you will be discriminated against by them, and your need will remain unsatisfied, even if the counterparty sees no serious benefit for themselves from your interaction. Conversely, if your need looks like foolish, meaningless whim to the counterparty, they will quite easily decide to avoid cooperation, unless, of course, it is vitally necessary for them as well.

Example. Herman Sterligov, widely known for his private discrimination, not only banned faggots from entering his stores but also ordered a piece of bread to be cut for free and to pour, I don’t remember, I think kvass—for anyone who asks for Christ’s sake. That is, he clearly indicated that his private discrimination recedes before truly serious cases. Perhaps I remembered the facts incorrectly, and according to his orders, faggots are not entitled to bread even for Christ’s sake, but even in this case, the direction of Sterligov’s thought illustrates the natural criterion for the development of norms of private discrimination that I propose.

What an elegant attempt to split the LGBT community by singling out a discriminated subset within it!

In general, it is clear why the criterion will be exactly this. After all, a human possesses the notorious powerful brain, perfectly tuned for modeling imaginary situations. Seeing a person in extreme need coming with a request, an individual easily puts themselves in that situation, thinks something like “if I were in their place, in case of refusal, I might even kill” (or, more likely, models possible moral condemnation from neighbors)—and decides to abandon the idea of discriminating against a person who is even very unpleasant to them.

Private discrimination in itself does not encroach on another’s self-ownership, does not violate the NAP, is not a breach of contract—in short, from whatever angle you look at it, it does not contradict libertarian principles. Private discrimination cannot be a subject of legal regulation in minarchism, where the court deals only with issues of protecting private property, interpretation of contracts, and similar things. Similarly, there is no place for the legal regulation of private discrimination within ancap—either a certain norm regarding obligations for a non-discriminatory service regime is in the contract, or it is not a subject of judicial proceedings. Only panarchy stands out, especially in the “cockroach” version, where one can end up under an insurance umbrella involuntarily, and that umbrella may, on its own initiative, regulate some aspects of private discrimination. Moreover, classical voluntary panarchy may include socialist jurisdictions where a person is guaranteed a number of positive rights, in other words, protection from some types of discrimination. But panarchy is more likely a probable transitional stage on the way to ancap rather than a specifically desired libertarian society. It allows free competition of management systems, destroying territorial monopoly, and that is already not bad.

Mostly, of course, private discrimination in a libertarian society is regulated by means of moral and reputational pressure—in other words, the threat of reciprocal and compensatory private discrimination. Everything is logical: aggressive violence is regulated by the threat of reciprocal and compensatory violence, and with discrimination, the exactly same mechanism applies.

How will things stand with graffiti and street art in general in Ancapistan?

анонимный вопрос

I have already had to answer regarding graffiti, but that was about current reality. How will the situation differ in Ancapistan?

Every wall is private property; where can a free artist go? Free creativity can only be illegal, otherwise what rebellious spirit could there be? So, we will leave banalities like the idea that one could only paint by contract with the wall owner to the lovers of banalities.

So, will private walls be painted in Ancapistan without asking the owner’s permission? Yes, of course they will! It could be a sincere desire to decorate a boring space, it could be Vasya’s intention to tell the whole world about his unearthly love for Olya, it could be the longing of a miserable lover to express his bitter regret that his beloved is leaving for Ptiburdokov—there are plenty of reasons one can imagine to fill an empty space with one’s own content!

What exact sanctions face the graffiti artist? Well, what sanctions are you prepared to impose on someone caught painting the wall of your private house? Well, you might swear, try to shame them, promise to give them a good thrashing next time. Or you might say, “Dude, sign your drawings so everyone knows it’s you who paints so poorly, and they can wish you a speedy improvement in your artistic skills.” Naturally, the more expensive the property, the more provocative the drawing, the greater the danger threatening the author of the masterpiece. He knows this. Nevertheless, I don’t recommend shooting them—people won’t understand. If you want to take a hard line, it’s better to sue and demand monetary compensation for damages.

This picture has already been here, but I am a pathetic copy-paster, not a proud graffiti artist

If court fees are paid by the losing party, wouldn’t it be more profitable for the court to rule against the rich?

And what should be done if the losing party refuses to pay (they don’t have enough assets), doesn’t want to work, or has simply checked out entirely? And, perhaps a silly question, but how can one reliably find out about previous court decisions? It’s not like reading reviews for a pizzeria.

Yura

What should a restaurateur do if a customer orders a lavish lunch, eats, and then, without paying, grabs a fork, stabs themselves in the eye, and dies? Write off the losses. What should a court do that agreed to judge a client who was clearly unable to pay for its services? Write off the losses.

Of course, a court could try to make a decision based not on the correctness of one of the parties in the conflict, but on their solvency. But people go to court voluntarily and choose it from many competing offers on a free market. In the long run, such judicial bias is no longer a profitable strategy. Another thing is that a court is not obliged to take on every case brought to it. For a small claim — find a cheaper court or settle it on your own.

As for reliable information about previous court decisions, both the courts themselves (if they believe they have a right to be proud of them) and their potential clients are interested in its provision. Whether such information will be collected in a registry of some association of courts, or whether a private aggregator providing excerpts to anyone for a modest fee will handle it — I won’t make such a detailed prediction, as there are many quite viable options, and it’s not even a fact that exactly one will eventually dominate the market. It is clear that not all decisions of all courts will end up in such registries, just as buying a bag of sunflower seeds is usually not recorded on a blockchain. After all, a court is simply a service, and in a free market, it can be provided by anyone to anyone, as long as the principle of voluntariness is observed.

Before such a court, it is indeed more dangerous to be rich than to be guilty

What-what? Vegetarianism?

You are passionately telling someone about your views, you see that the person is interested, but you realize that in five minutes they will forget half of the terms they heard, and when they try to Google them the next day, they will discover a lot of new things about vegetarianism and monarchy instead of libertarianism and panarchy… For this reason, it is always useful to carry a few simple business cards with you; that way, even after a very heavy drinking session, there is a chance that the conversation wasn’t in vain.

Bitarch and I have prepared a sample for you. Just print one page on heavy paper at any copy center; it will almost certainly come in handy. The business cards are made to be exactly the same size as a bank card, so you won’t have to guess where to keep them—after all, you keep your cards somewhere.

We’re designers in our mother’s eyes…

https://ancapchan.info/downloads/Business_Card_Print.zip

Dedicated lanes on private roads

I own a bus company and want to make buses more attractive for commuting to increase revenue. I’ve decided to use a dedicated lane.

Several private individuals own the roads in the city. I managed to reach an agreement with two of them, but not with the last one. Moreover, he owns the most congested sections.

What should I do?

Maksim Barbukhin

I strongly doubt that in a free market, dedicating a lane for public transport would be profitable for a road owner. It’s a different story if the private owner makes one of the lanes toll-based, and subscriptions for the right to use it are purchased by bus companies, emergency services, taxi aggregators, and simply those who need it urgently and regularly. Either way, in this case, you managed to agree on a preferential right of way, and the details are not very important.

But your routes run into a road section where traffic is denser and there is no dedicated lane—for example, it simply cannot be squeezed in here because it’s the old city and it’s too narrow. Or perhaps the owner simply has a different business model and is not inclined to adapt to your needs. In this situation, I would try this option: buy advertising along the problematic sections of the road, and there, present a request to give way to the bus. The motivational part can vary. You could appeal to social consciousness, for example: “a bus is like an ambulance for those waiting at the stop; please yield the lane so people don’t wait too long, and they will be grateful to you.” Or you could do it this way: “By yielding the lane to our company’s bus, you enter a prize draw. Every day, we raffle off valuable prizes for polite drivers.” And on the advertising screen, show footage of yesterday’s winner taken from the bus’s dashcam: here is a car with such-and-such a license plate moving to the left to give way; dear driver, you have won so-and-so, contact us to receive your prize.

Many other motivation methods can be devised, focusing not on the uncooperative monopoly owner of a specific section, but on the competitive market of the users of that section. After all, you don’t need the entire lane for yourself; it’s enough that your bus is let through. The more pleasant it is for people to do this, the more likely they are to let you pass.

Toll dedicated lanes are cool, but not possible everywhere