Автор: Анкап-тян

What do you think about agorism? Are there differences between anarcho-capitalism and agorism?

Classical Liberal

The difference between ancap and agorism is quite simple. Ancap is a state of society in which institutionalized coercion is absent, while agorism is a strategy for achieving ancap. In one of my early posts “Ancap or Minarchism?” I called this method counter-cultural, as opposed to political, but I am ready to agree that the term is subpar and a mouthful; in the future, I will use the word “agorism” specifically.

Agorism assumes that the only effective strategy for achieving ancap is direct action. If you want ancap, live according to ancap; do not try to bargain with the state or use state-approved mechanisms for interacting with the state, because this practice, which is questionable in terms of protecting rights, strengthens those very mechanisms and the state along with them.

Agorism is the black market, private education, crypto-economics, horizontal ties, and voluntary mutual aid. As is easy to see, in recent years, agorists have achieved considerable success in developing the necessary infrastructure and do not plan to stop.

However, it is also easy to see that the greatest intellectual contribution to the development of agorist mechanisms is still made by people living in relatively free states, while agorists in somewhere like China keep quiet as mice. Thus, for agorism to emerge as an ideological direction and develop steadily, rather than representing spontaneous, easily suppressed acts of defiance against violence, a certain basic level of political and economic freedoms is necessary, and this level is achieved precisely by political methods.

On the other hand, for example, the economic transformation from a planned to a market economy in Russia happened largely thanks to the black market that had already developed in the late Soviet Union; without it, private property would have had to be created from absolute scratch, which would have been far more difficult.

Finally, I will note that for a market to emerge, a certain minimum level of trust in society is required, without which the costs of ensuring security simply eat up all the benefits of most transactions, making market relations marginal, while subsistence farming and various forms of coercion come to the fore. The best mechanism for establishing trust is the successful experience of joint activity. And here, political activity, some form of cooperative economics, charity, and even sports competitions or mass celebrations are equally suitable.

So both agorism and political libertarianism successfully work toward the same goal. The more political rights there are relative to underdeveloped economic rights, the more relevant agorism becomes. The more economic rights there are relative to underdeveloped political rights, the more relevant political activity becomes, although it may also take on very peculiar forms—which is no surprise if parties are not registered and not included in ballots. And in a situation where there are neither political nor economic rights, I’m sorry, but the most direct path is flight from this hell, or an armed uprising.

Another pitfall of agorism: the similarity of methods with left-wing anarchists can lead to migration toward their ideology. Be careful with that.

Liberal Archipelago

In my favorite Hyde Park Library, a book was recently uploaded that few people are likely to read, if only because of the disgusting format (a scan of a paper book) and its massive size (nearly five hundred pages). I am talking about “Liberal Archipelago” by Chandran Kukathas. However, you will surely have enough patience to read the book’s preface written by Vadim Novikov.

I won’t lie, I also only managed to get through the preface and skimmed the rest of the book, mainly to make sure that it was at least written in a digestible style. Yes, the style is fine; it’s readable.

What is interesting about the ideas presented by Kukathas? He analyzes liberal notions of justice (Rawls’ veil of ignorance principle and the like) and concludes that while this is all theoretically very attractive, in practice, it will still be impossible to impose uniform concepts on people. And it shouldn’t be done. According to Kukathas, the most critical basic freedom is the freedom to exit a community. The most critical liberal virtue is tolerance. If you truly and sincerely believe that your ethical principles are the best, prove it through peaceful competition rather than imposing them by force.

This refers back to my recent post about the US Civil War. Yes, slavery offends the sense of justice. But the attempt to rid the Southern states of slavery through laws passed in Congress led to secession, secession led to war, and as a result, no one escaped unscathed.

Kukathas concludes that a society consistent with liberal principles would be one where the question of power is resolved by a social contract, but where this contract is entered into by each specific person within each specific community they belong to and from which they can freely exit. This is the same idea of contractual jurisdictions frequently discussed by libertarians. So, if you need more arguments in their favor—you know what else is worth reading.

How is it with female genital mutilation in the Beautiful Russia of the Future?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Female genital mutilation, like any forced medical procedure performed without necessity, is a crime against a person. The main problem is that it is most often committed by relatives against a legally incompetent girl. In Russia, cases of female circumcision have been recorded in Dagestan. If we try to analyze this from the perspective of the NAP, it is an assault on a person with the intent to cause injury, putting their life at risk. Circumcision is most often performed at home by people who lack even basic medical knowledge.

The non-aggression principle presupposes the protection of a person of any age. Consequently, in the Beautiful Russia of the Future, the girl’s relatives will be held accountable: either in the form of compensation for damages or via deductions from income earned in a private prison.

I believe that the position viewing a child as the property of their parents is untenable; the child and parent are in a guardianship relationship. The intentional infliction of harm on a ward is a more terrible crime than aggressive violence against a person who could fight back. At the same time, it would be logical for a court to declare the guardianship of such relatives illegal. The victim, unable to support herself, has the right to choose a more worthy guardian or to live and study in institutions maintained by private funds.

Over time, the tradition will fade into the past. Currently, it is sustained by the impunity of those performing the operation. The reason for this impunity is total nepotism in the regions where the practice is widespread. There, a child simply has nowhere to turn for protection. The police will not accept a report of grievous bodily harm because that’s just how things are done there. An independent municipal court or an arbitration court is more likely to side with the victim to maintain its reputation.

This tradition is unlikely to find support among insurers. Infection is very often introduced during female circumcision. The most common complications of such a procedure are inflammation, scarring, and difficulties with urination and the discharge of menstrual fluids. Insurers would have to pay for the treatment of every unsuccessful case. Another motive deterring relatives would be a manifold increase in insurance costs.

The damaged reputation of those practicing such atrocities could also influence the eradication of the tradition. While we currently cannot influence the security forces and clan leaders of the North Caucasus, without state support, they will have to reckon with the general law enforcement practice across the country; otherwise, people will not agree to live in their jurisdictions.

And yes, an exception is possible. If a woman wishes to obtain a certain status or respect among Muslims who adhere to such a tradition, she has the right to go to a clinic and undergo the procedure voluntarily. It is quite difficult to stop her; she is the owner of her own body.

Addition from Ancap-chan

In a situation where such a practice is widespread throughout a community (and circumcision can also be male, which is no less of a piece of filth), it is pointless to try to take the victimized child away from the parents through a court and hand them over to other relatives, as they most likely hold similar views. It is even more pointless to try to fine the parents, as they share a budget with the child, and the child, in addition to the mutilation, would be punished financially.

But upon growing up and gaining independence (and in the BRF, even a traditional society will be forced to grant a woman this independence), the woman can then pursue her parents in court for her mutilation, be branded an ungrateful beast, but uphold the version of justice that she herself shares.

The state, of course, also knows how to deal with traditional society, but such a medicine is worse than the disease. In a libertarian environment, traditional society will erode much faster and more reliably through the rebellion of individuals.

Do you think a full-fledged ancap could emerge in the process of colonizing planets?

анонимный вопрос

A vast number of science fiction works are dedicated to the theme of relations between Earth and its alien colonies. Significant attention is also paid in such works to the organization of society within these colonies. In essence, it all comes down to which specific sci-fi assumptions form the basis of a given plot.

Let us try the opposite approach: to understand what minimum sci-fi (and preferably realistic) assumptions must be made so that the society emerging in Earth’s alien colony is anarcho-capitalist. Well, let us reason it through.

In theory, of course, by the time alien colonies appear, ancap should already exist on Earth; accordingly, it would be quite natural for a colony to maintain this specific type of social relation. But that is too trivial an assumption, albeit quite realistic.

For the sake of interest, I would, for example, assume the opposite: that for some mysterious reason, the technologies for colonizing other planets are all available, yet ancap has still not taken root. It is not entirely clear to me how this could be, as there are no grounds for states to have survived for so long. But we are talking about science fiction, and this is our sci-fi assumption.

Moving on. For anarcho-capitalism to exist in a colony, a free market must be established there. If, for instance, the entire colony consists of a single firm trading with Earth, then the relations within it will likely be monetary-labor relations, and we will get a completely different society. Thus, sufficient autonomy of the colonists is necessary; after all, if they depend on centrally distributed resources in everything, there can be no anarchy. This means either the planet is terraformed, or it was originally habitable, or the technologies for arranging living space around oneself are very inexpensive and accessible to almost everyone.

As a result, we have a surplus of living space, which allows people to coexist only when it brings benefits, and not simply because it is crowded and there is nowhere else to go. This is very important for the emergence of the proverbial autonomy of the individual and the dominance of voluntary relations—coercion in such an environment is simply unnecessary and highly ineffective.

In general, with the colonization of such a planet, we get a situation similar to the experience of the USA, but without Indians and slaves—those two ancestral traumas of the United States that contributed to the expansion of federal government powers and led to internal wars.

We will dismiss the sci-fi assumption regarding the possibility of interplanetary wars with disdain: it is good for a blockbuster, but far too improbable. This also works in favor of ancap: there is no need to maintain a defense against space invasion, because out of fear of something like that, a state might accidentally emerge, and then you’d have to root it out of people’s minds…

How to bring ancap as close as possible in countries with a post-communist economy?

Everything looks quite smooth in the USA, but conditions are different in the former USSR. Often, loss-making state enterprises, mono-towns, an economy tied to the military-industrial complex, and micro-district housing developments hinder individualism and state non-interference — eliminating or minimizing the state and closing loss-making enterprises in a short timeframe would lead to unemployment and the demise of all public sector workers, while the survivors would hang the reformers, disregarding the NAP. Does Russia have a chance for successful libertarian reforms?

анонимный вопрос

Answer by Alex Murin

And why rush? Ancap and libertarianism are an ideology. If people share it, they will be guided by it. If they don’t, they won’t. You cannot force people to live without a state. These are free people; they decide for themselves how to live. It is only in mono-towns and at loss-making state enterprises that people more quickly come to the realization that the government is not their friend. Instead of shops with beautiful displays, kiosks with cheap beer begin to appear; instead of excise vodka, people switch to moonshine. Instead of saying “I am an honest taxpayer,” people prefer to hide their income and conduct cash transactions without documentation.

High-rise development, where neighbors do not know each other and the concept of “one’s own” ends at the apartment threshold, is a serious problem for a free society. Until people become owners of their land and understand that their home is a fortress belonging only to them, it is difficult to speak of freedom and self-government. But we have another factor playing in our favor — poverty. A person who has nothing to lose is more likely to stop supporting the one who robs them year after year than a person who has their own house or firm, who is not ashamed to say “my grandfather and father voted for the Republicans, and I support them too.” There are many paths to a free society; we chose the path through poverty and extreme social inequality. And I would not want to specify deadlines; I would rather indicate the direction.

Addition by Ancap-tyan

During the collapse of the state, we should all take an example from Venezuela. While official propaganda there glorified the victories of the socialist economy and inflation hit record highs, people invested in what was beyond the state’s control — in bitcoin. The volume of bolivar transactions on the localbitcoins service noticeably exceeds, for example, the volume of euro transactions. However, Russians do not particularly need my advice, as the volume of ruble transactions on localbitcoins also exceeds the volume of euro transactions. So, even when the state demonstrates extreme inefficiency, it is by no means necessary to lose everything because of it. When a chance arises to change something in the country, it is better to have resources than not to have them.

Of course, bitcoin is not the only possible investment beyond the state’s control. Even more important are investments in horizontal ties. You may not be a civil society if you believe that political methods are currently ineffective, or if you despise political methods as such. But as atomized loners, you will not survive without the state. Therefore, the well-known communist slogan calling for the unification of the world proletariat should also be taken into account and creatively reworked for yourself, simply by removing the restrictions on the class composition of your community.

Finally, if for some reason you are a public sector worker receiving pennies for meaningless and ineffective work for the state, it would be foolish to discourage you from this job — you would have left it long ago yourself if you could. But you should not obsess over it. They say that in the late Soviet Union, which consisted of public sector workers just a bit more than entirely, terms absent from socialist political economy, such as “shabashka,” “kalym,” and other names for counter-economic phenomena, enjoyed extraordinary popularity. And so it is now — a good leftist under socialism strengthens not the marriage, but the personal budget. You can receive a salary from the state, but it is better to spend your main efforts on side jobs.

I am still not sure how to feel about the American Civil War, its causes, and its results. How do ancaps view slavery, voluntary sale into slavery, and the forced liberation of slaves?

анонимный вопрос

It seems to me that the best approach is to treat the events of the past with a certain detachment and not attempt to seriously judge those people by today’s standards. It is a completely different matter if someone today tries to dig up obsolete recipes and implement them in life under the pretext that it is a venerable tradition stretching back centuries.

Therefore, it is one thing to carefully study the complex collision of ethics and law that emerged in the 19th century in the USA, further complicated by the serious difference in economic systems between the North and the South and the immediate interests of politicians. It is another thing to consider, for example, the US Declaration of Independence a harmful document on the grounds that its author was a slave owner. And it is a third thing entirely to consider slavery justified on those same grounds—if Jefferson could do it, why can’t we.

The Southern states had both the legal right to declare their secession and quite valid reasons, as US President Lincoln blatantly violated the fragile compromise according to which half of the newly created states were slave-holding and half were not. So many funds were spent on the war between the USA and the Confederacy that it would have been enough to buy out and free all the slaves, teach them to read and write, and build them housing. More people died than in all subsequent wars in which the USA participated. During and immediately after the war, the powers of the federal government were expanded, and the powers of the states were curtailed. In short, the war was a huge tragedy, and of course, an outcome in which the market, rather than war, decided the fate of slavery would have personally suited me much better.

That is precisely why I have no theoretical objections to people voluntarily entering into relationships that might seem like slavery to someone else. But likewise, I have nothing against private abolitionism, if the abolitionist provides convincing evidence of the involuntary nature of the slave state. Nevertheless, I would prefer such activism to take place through means of moral pressure rather than through violence, because you don’t want it to be like the Civil War!

You can achieve more with a kind word and a gun than with a gun alone. It is believed that this phrase was invented only in the 20th century, and it is a great pity that Lincoln, who lived in the 19th century, did not think of it himself. My sympathy is completely sincere: after all, this guy paid with his life for his policies.

Here is another person who paid with his life for his abolitionism, but at least he killed fewer innocent bystanders

Shulman on Telegram

Ekaterina Schulmann, my favorite political scientist, who until very recently claimed that she did not understand Telegram and hardly used it, started her own channel on December 13. So, if you previously struggled and suffered but read her on Facebook, you can now breathe a sigh of relief and switch to your favorite interface. And the more people who join her, the more attention she will give to it.

Telegram is taking over the world even faster than kittens!

Can one praise a tyrant to save lives?

For example, praising and promoting Putin to gain the ability to operate your own charitable foundation where you will save lives. Is this a violation of the NAP?

анонимный вопрос

I present to you my new co-author; he will answer the questions you have accumulated from time to time, and where I want to add something, I will do so. So, responding is Alex Murin.

Ancap-chan

The principle of the non-aggression principle implies only the rejection of aggressive violence. Everything you write or say does not relate to the NAP. However, the NAP is a fundamental principle, not the only one. There is also the principle of freedom of contract, the institution of reputation, public opinion, and traditions. In general, there are many different factors to which the NAP has no relation. If everything is reduced to the NAP, one can simply get lost in logical and legal constructions. It is not worth doing that.

From the point of view of the NAP, praising Putin to get money for a charity or a public organization is permissible. You are not attacking people to kill or rob them.

And then there is the reputational aspect: you convince people that the system currently in place in Russia is the only possible one, that the country is managed by a person leading it toward prosperity. If you do not believe this, but want to get money from it to implement a humanitarian mission, then judge yourself. You did not attack, kill, or rob. You wrote or spoke words that you will then reproduce in one way or another. People who have not seen you will judge you by these words. Will they want to accept help from a person who praises a system that sent them to the bottom of life? Everything stated in the question has no relation whatsoever to the prohibition of aggressive violence. If, in your opinion, you are lying and then performing good deeds to redeem your own guilt, then you are doing double work. If you believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich is the person who deserves to be exalted, while performing good deeds, then “blessed is he who believes,” and your conscience is clear. If this is how you earn money, then your judge is your conscience. In short: this has no relation to the NAP, based on its definition. But the NAP is the primary, not the only principle.

And yes, I would not use the techniques of a Baptist preacher to influence your opinion; that would be dishonest.


Can you somehow read chapter 11 of Heinlein’s “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” about the trial and give an assessment? It seemed to me that this is exactly an example (although not in every respect) of so-called libertarian courts. Thanks!

Ancap-kun

I don’t know if Heinlein read Hayek, but in the book “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress,” he effectively describes through examples the emergence of spontaneous orders, specifically a court that does not rely on any laws handed down from above or precedents coming from the depths of centuries.

The essence of the procedure is as follows. The parties to the court turn to anyone who is willing to arbitrate between them and whom they would like to see as a judge in their case. There are those who make judicial practice their profession, those who supplement this with other activities, and those who may suddenly find themselves invited to judge.

An interesting feature of the judicial proceedings is that the judge takes an equal amount of money from each party before the start of the hearing, based solely on the size of the claim. The more that is at stake in the conflict, the more the judge risks their reputation, and the more money they charge for it.

If either party wishes, the judge may call in any number of volunteers as jurors. The task of the jurors is to deliver a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty,” and for their work, they receive a fixed payment set by the judge. To be honest, this tradition seems to me a rudiment from Earth, and in the described society, it looks like a tacked-on addition.

After the case has been examined on its merits, the jurors, if there are any, deliver a verdict, and the judge announces the sentence, stating who owes how much to whom.

The point of the entire ritual is to defuse conflicts and prevent vendettas. Instead of a court, one can agree to a judicial duel, where, again, there will be a referee and possibly seconds.

Of course, I like the described system, especially since it strongly resembles how I myself described the proposed judicial proceedings under ancap. I am asked about courts often—this is already the fifteenth question—but everything can be easily found via the corresponding hashtag.

How is the success of modern China explained from a libertarian perspective? What is the role of state regulation in it?

анонимный вопрос

Actually, modern China is not only the People’s Republic of China, but also the Republic of China, as well as Macau, Hong Kong, and to a considerable extent, Singapore. And specifically in terms of citizen welfare, the People’s Republic of China fares worse than all the other states I mentioned, despite the fact that the starting conditions for economic development in the PRC, the Republic of China, and Singapore were roughly the same.

Therefore, from a libertarian perspective, one must explain China’s failure rather than its success. Yes, of course, Deng Xiaoping proved better for the PRC than Mao Zedong. But the residents of the Republic of China achieved far more significant success without any world-famous reformers. What is the role of state regulation here? As is easy to see, it is negative.

In reality, of course, there is a degree of cunning here; it is much harder for a large continental country to escape poverty and socialism than for a small maritime one. But any city on the coast of mainland China could today live no worse than Hong Kong or at least the Republic of China, and if that is not the case, the responsibility lies solely with the leadership of the PRC. The guiding and directing role of the Communist Party is too great, the share of the state sector in the economy is too high, and too many resources are spent not on what people are willing to buy, but on the construction of the Great Firewall and the social credit system.

The Great Firewall of China and its role in the success of modern China