Автор: Анкап-тян

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.

Mao is perceived by us as a funny ancient deity, but what if I posted a picture of Stalin? Leaders are attractive…

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!