Many people see nothing wrong with cooperating with the state in every possible way, taking grants from it, working as a civil servant, or even building their entire career within the state sphere. Some may believe that there are certain prospects in this field, others think the state will help them, and still others believe they are working for the good of society. But let us look at what it actually means to tie oneself to the state.
1) You are easily framed
By working in the state sphere or even simply associating yourself with the state in any way, you automatically sign up for the risk that the crimes of other, more influential state officials will be pinned on you, or that you will be thrown behind bars simply because you displeased them in some way. Politics is characterized by cases where some bureaucrats shift their sins onto other bureaucrats, subordinates, or agents otherwise connected to them, and send those people to prison. In the private sphere, an attempt to set someone up can cost significant reputational and legal expenses. In the case of the state apparatus, a frame-up costs nothing, especially considering that the judicial system is under the patronage of the state itself.
The “Seventh Studio” case provides a good example of this phenomenon. In the end, state grants backfired on the founder of this theater troupe and some of his colleagues. This is a good example of why one should not get involved with the state, even if it promises help.
2) You will achieve nothing
If you decide to train for a profession in a field of activity that is either strictly regulated and subordinate, or entirely monopolized by the state, it is unlikely that anything good will come of it. In the private environment, different organizations compete with each other for employees. They have an incentive to raise wages and improve working conditions. But in the case of the state sphere, there are no alternative competing agents. That is why there are no economic incentives to raise wages and improve working conditions. Ordinary workers in the state sphere have nothing to gain!
Although, of course, a certain group of employees can lobby for their interests and get what they want, but in this situation, we move to point No. 3.
3) And if you do achieve something – at what cost and who will you become?
Suppose you were able to achieve something in the state sphere. Using your social skills, connections, bribery, and other corrupt methods, you either obtained certain privileges for yourself or occupied an important post in the state apparatus. In this case, you seem to be doing well. But this “well” is the same as the “well” of a thief who has robbed other people, or a rapist who torments their victims.
Unlike the market environment, where everyone within their private framework can promote their ideas without conflicting with other subjects, politics is always a conflict. And by winning this conflict, you only obtain benefits through the forced subordination of other subjects. Here, your interests are important, and the interests of others can be brutally ignored.
If you like this state of affairs, it is obvious what conclusions can be drawn about you. You are a robber, a rapist, and a maniac! And do not try to justify yourself by saying that you work for the good of society as a whole. You have certain beliefs and programs that require the implementation of specific ideas regarding the entire society at once, disregarding the desires of those who disagree and would want something else. Again, in a market environment, everyone can try to implement their ideas without a violent struggle against those whose ideas are completely opposite; no one needs to subordinate other people to their ideas for them to work (politicized ideas, however, cannot work without this).
Furthermore, let us not forget point No. 1. No matter what privileges you have now, it is unknown where they will lead in the future. Perhaps the highest state officials will dislike you for some reason, and you will have to prepare for the worst. Or perhaps power will change, and you will also be sent far away as a supporter of the wrong ideas.
Getting involved with the state is harmful to oneself. You may become a victim of a frame-up, you are unlikely to find anything good in the state sphere if you are an ordinary worker, and if you do achieve something, it will only be through robbery and violence against other people. Obviously, it is not worth it!
Suppose road #1 is the only one leading from point A to point B. Accordingly, a monopoly arises, and entrepreneur #1 raises the price to an enormous value. In theory, some entrepreneur #2 should appear who will break the monopoly and build their own road #2; let’s assume that is what happens. After this, the owner of road #1 simply lowers the price to the market rate, and entrepreneurs 1 and 2 compete. So what is the benefit for entrepreneur #2 to break the first one’s monopoly if they get no advantage from it?
The situation modeled in this question does not correspond to the processes that actually occur in the market. Following this logic, after a certain business appears in a specific location, no one else would open a similar business there because it would be unprofitable. However, we observe something entirely different. On one street, you can almost always see several grocery stores; in one shopping center, several restaurants; in one building, several offices of different insurance companies, etc. A new business opens as long as any acceptable profit can be made from it, because that too is profitable.
Furthermore, let’s consider the specific case of roads. Even a monopoly owner of a road on a certain straight line between two points is unable to excessively inflate the toll cost simply because they are not actually a real monopolist. If people feel that this “monopolist” is hiking prices too high, they will decide that it is more profitable, for example, to take a detour that goes through point “C” between points “A” and “B,” or to use some alternative mode of transport (rail or air), or, in the extreme case, to travel off-road entirely. Therefore, even without direct competition, the monopolist cannot set the toll significantly above the market rate, as such a decision would bankrupt them. Nevertheless, it is still profitable for them to own the road, as they are still capable of generating an acceptable profit from it. Similarly, it will be profitable for any agent who decides to build another road parallel to it.
Among the authoritarian right, there is a widespread belief that capitalism and the market can exist and function only through strict state control. They believe that this is the only way to ensure the protection of property rights, the honesty and security of agreements, and to correct certain alleged deficiencies of the free market. Naturally, alongside this, they deny that such state intervention in market processes is an act of violence. In their view, this intervention is precisely what protects everyone from violence. But is this actually the case?
1) State intervention harms market processes
From economic theory, we know that by intervening, the state disrupts market equilibrium. The most obvious example of measures leading to such a process is the establishment of minimum and maximum prices. The first measure leads entrepreneurs to believe that the production of a certain good is more profitable than it actually is. As a result, an overproduction of this good occurs, and the entrepreneurs themselves, unable to sell it, only go bankrupt. The second measure, conversely, leads to a shortage of the good, as it becomes unprofitable to produce and sell, and the fact that the cost is lower than the market price leads to those first in line for the product buying up the entire available assortment immediately, leaving nothing for those who find themselves at the end of the line.
Usually, proponents of state control say that these measures are necessary to support entrepreneurs and to guarantee that all people are provided with a certain benefit, and that the listed problems are solved by additional measures (subsidizing entrepreneurs and controlling the redistribution of benefits among people). But, of course, these measures require additional bureaucratic expenses, which negate the alleged benefits obtained from introducing these regulations.
The state also takes a portion of the population’s funds through taxation, and thereby partially deprives people of the ability to invest their funds in the types of production in which they are genuinely interested. Furthermore, through its regulations, the state makes it difficult for businesses to enter certain economic spheres, which also distorts market equilibrium and complicates people’s access to certain types of benefits.
Let us also not forget that in some spheres, the state declares itself to be an indisputable monopolist. Unable to compare the results of its activities with possible alternatives, and unconditionally receiving profit in the form of tax funds regardless of the quality of these results, the state monopoly is an inefficient producer, which harms the well-being of citizens.
Finally, the state corrupts the private sector. Under conditions of a free market, companies have only one option to continue functioning and increasing their wealth—providing people with benefits of the highest quality and at the lowest prices. Otherwise, people will simply leave for competitors. The state, however, gives some entrepreneurs an alternative option—corruption. An entrepreneur bribes officials (or promotes their relatives, friends, and acquaintances into the state apparatus) and gains legal grounds to restrict competitors from conducting a certain activity. At the very least, he can avoid the application of state regulations to himself and achieve the active imposition of these regulations on everyone else. At most, he can lobby for a law that makes him the only legal producer in a specific economic sphere.
Through its regulations and monopolistic coercive control, the state severely harms economic processes, distorts market equilibrium, and reduces the well-being of people. Capitalism, as a type of economic system in which legal equality as well as the principle of freedom of activity and agreement must be observed, is absolutely incompatible with the actions undertaken by any governments.
2) The state does not protect property rights and does not ensure the security of transactions
An important point in the program of etatists is that the state is necessary for the protection of property rights and guaranteeing the security of transactions, without which capitalism and the market cannot function at all. Minarchists—proponents of a minimal state that should engage only in this—place particular emphasis on this.
Yes, I agree that property rights and the security of transactions are necessary for the functioning of the economic system as a whole. However, the state cannot provide them in any way.
Let us remember that the state is a monopolistic and indisputable instrument of power. Being in specific hands at a specific moment, it serves only the interests of its owners. And nothing can stop them from abusing their authority and violating the norms they themselves have prescribed. Of course, it can be said that this is solved by the democratization of politics, or by creating a system in which only intelligent and kind rulers come to power. But in reality, neither will work. Ensuring the first, even in its absolute (that is, in the form of direct democracy), only means the observance of the interests of the majority to the detriment of the interests of the minority. Ensuring the second completely collapses against the phenomenon of corruption and the potential incompetence of the agents and agencies engaged in searching for and bringing to power supposedly pure and innocent angel-rulers.
Even in the case where the government is more or less reasonable, it still, unlike market and competing agents, has no incentives to act in the most efficient way. It only needs to act as efficiently as the population’s indignation does not exceed a certain critical level, above which the actions of security forces become either ineffective or cause the government significant reputational damage, thereby stimulating the rest of the population and the global community in general to also express indignation.
As Mikhail Svetov always correctly notes, the state is the One Ring of power. And regardless of whose hands this ring is in, one should not expect it to work for the good.
The observance of property rights and the security of transactions can be ensured only by the Balance of Violence Potential and Reputational Institutions. The first concept states that monopolistic power should not exist at all, and that different subjects and groups of subjects should possess approximately equal capabilities to inflict unacceptable damage on one another. In such conditions, cooperation will be far more profitable than coercion. The second concept asserts that reputational institutions and services can be used as tools for guaranteeing the security of transactions. Furthermore, they provide ostracism as an effective and powerful tool for punishing those who were not honest in their intentions.
You can read more about the concept of the Balance of Violence Potential here. You can learn how Reputational Institutions function, why Reputational Services are useful, and what ostracism is here.
3) State intervention is always violence
What do you call a subject (a person or an organization) who unilaterally imposes certain conditions on me, forces me to give them a part of my funds, and threatens to take away even more of my funds or forcibly lock me behind bars in case of non-compliance with the conditions imposed by them? Obviously, this is a rapist and an aggressor, and the actions they carry out are violence and aggression. And the institutionalization of these phenomena in no way changes their essence.
Even in the case where the state exists exclusively to protect its citizens from violence, it still first commits an act of aggression toward them, because it establishes itself as their protector regardless of the desire and choice of the people. In fact, this is common gangster protection (“kryshevanie”). If someone breaks into my house, points a gun at me, and says, “give me this much money, and I will protect you, otherwise you will be punished yourself,” then that too would be an obvious act of aggression.
A rapist and aggressor cannot be your protector, because to provide this protection, they must first apply aggression to you. Based on this, the state, politicians, bureaucrats, and all those who clearly support state activities are rapists and aggressors, because their activities assume that people must be attacked first, covering themselves with stories allegedly about how if we don’t attack you, someone else will. Naturally, the attitude toward the listed subjects should be appropriate.
We can draw the following conclusions: the state hinders the functioning of the economy and market processes, it is unable to ensure the protection of property rights and the security of transactions, and it is merely a rapist who has imposed their will on you through methods of aggression. And after all this, how can one even support the idea of state control and intervention? No sane person will do so, and whoever does—they themselves admit that they lack the slightest competence in matters of economics, public management, and in general are an open rapist and maniac!
Arguments about the possibility of ancap often arise, and in theoretical terms, ancap is doing fine. Until recently, I was a confident ancap myself, until I thought about one idea of classical conservatism: in theory, just as people find the most profitable paths in a free market, society finds the most effective social institutions for itself. Thus, can it be said that the state is the most effective and natural way to combat crime, without which things would be bad? Preferably without Hoppean gimmicks: his theory is mainly devoted to Western Europe, and besides, centralized states like the Roman Empire existed in Europe even before feudalism.
anonymous question
Of course, the free market leads to the most effective solutions. However, the basis of the processes occurring in the market is freedom of activity and agreement. Any solution arising in the market cannot contradict these principles; it operates precisely as long as the agents involved agree to conduct their activities based on the terms of the agreement established between them. This solution ceases to operate in relation to anyone if the subject decides to break the agreement and refuse further cooperation. Thus, in the market, no one can forcibly compel someone to be a client of a particular organization, buy its products and use its services, or participate in any jurisdiction or any other form of collective of people. Indeed, market solutions do not use coercion.
Suppose that such a form of social management as centralized political power is, at a certain point, accepted by people as the most effective solution. However, living conditions gradually change, and people’s interests change as well. Naturally, no single solution can be effective forever. In the market, ineffective solutions are usually replaced by other solutions that are effective relative to the new conditions. A solution such as the “state” establishes itself as an eternal and indestructible solution, which no one has the right to challenge under any circumstances, and even less so to replace it with some other solution. Therefore, even if we assume that the state could have arisen through a market path of voluntary agreement, this in no way makes it an effective solution at any point in time other than the one in which it was accepted by everyone, since subsequently living conditions and people’s interests changed, yet the state provided no right to challenge it.
However, I would not even be quick to assume that states arose through a market path. Most likely, they arose through violent coercion. This is indicated to us by the theory of the stationary bandit, which states that states arose as a result of the settling of nomadic bandits who decided to subjugate the population of a certain territory and collect a regular tribute from it. You can read more about this theory here. Furthermore, history is known for numerous conquests and subjugations; therefore, even if one of the centralized territorial formations did arise through agreement, it ceased to be a market solution as soon as it was either forcibly subjugated by someone or decided to engage in the subjugation of others.
The state is not the most effective option for social relations simply because it consists of violence against people, as well as prohibits the implementation of any alternative solutions and establishes itself as an unshakeable and eternal truth.
When criticizing the state, it is very common to hear that if you don’t like it, you should just leave for another “pen.” The argument is that states are also private competing organizations; they survive on funds paid by their clients (meaning citizens), and every person has a choice among many states, which means we already live in a free society. In reality, this is a very inadequate explanation of what the state is and how it works. Why? Let’s find out!
What does replacing one private agent with another usually mean? You need to terminate the old contract and enter into a new one with another agent. Of course, this process can sometimes encounter some difficulties, but overall it does not carry any unacceptable burdens. In this matter, you most likely will not even have to change your place of residence. And if you do (for example, you decide to change residential complexes or find a job in a neighboring city), the environment surrounding you still will not change fundamentally.
What does changing a state mean? You need to renounce your culture, your language, your loved ones and acquaintances, your familiar living environment, incur significant monetary expenses, fulfill a series of conditions regarding the termination of your previous citizenship (sometimes difficult to fulfill; I know one person who could not renounce Russian citizenship due to the need to “pay the debt to the Motherland”), and also fulfill a series of conditions to obtain new citizenship (you cannot move to another country simply by buying housing or finding a job—meaning, while getting the approval of some local residents, you still need permission from the state), and so on.
The process of changing states faces significant costs. An ordinary person will not move to another country simply because they have a poor knowledge of the local language and lack sufficient funds. Most people will flee their country only if the government starts simply shooting everyone indiscriminately (however, such governments usually also close the borders). In any other situation, no matter how bad it is, the majority of the population remains where they were.
One might say that you simply should not belong to the majority, that you need to develop yourself, strive, learn other languages, accumulate funds for relocation by all possible means, prove your reliability and usefulness to another state, and then everything will work out—and if you don’t do this, it means you don’t really want to change anything in your life.
However, even if you strive and successfully move to the territory of another state, this still provides no guarantees regarding the policy of the new sovereign. Regardless of the circumstances, the majority of the population of any state (the very ones who will never move) will not escape paying taxes and obeying state regulations. The state has the ability to use these people and their resources to pursue its own goals. This gives it the opportunity to make mistakes in its policy, or even adopt very inadequate and irrational decisions, since it always has the means to cover the resulting costs.
A private organization needs to function as efficiently as possible because it lives entirely on the sale of its goods and services. Any manifestation of inefficiency is unacceptable for it, as this would lead to the goods it provides being either more expensive or of lower quality than those of its competitors; it would thus lose clients and its income.
The state, however, does not need to strive for maximum efficiency. A specific government only needs to conduct a policy that is efficient enough to keep citizen indignation below a certain critical level. But no more than that.
States in no way resemble private organizations; they do not compete for people, but exploit the population belonging to them. The state is always slavery. To say that states are market and competing organizations is nonsense!
Ancap-chan’s Comment
Any analogy should not be taken completely literally. Of course, states compete for people, although this does not at all negate the thesis that they strive to exploit them for the purpose of obtaining income—if there were no such goal, there would be no sense in competing. Citizenships of different states have different values, although, of course, different people value different advantages provided by one citizenship or another.
But with equal success, we could consider the preferences of slaves regarding which master it is better to be owned by. It is known that some slaves successfully changed masters according to their preferences, although the bulk of them were unable to do so, or did not even perceive it as a need.
Supporters of the state often claim that scientific progress is impossible in a free society, and that only the state is capable of providing science with the resources necessary for its development. There are several objections to this thesis.
In Theory of a Free Society, I described in detail from an economic point of view how the state hinders the realization of any ideas. The state implements ideas in the least efficient way, as it can pour unlimited money into their embodiment without thinking about profit, while simultaneously restricting private initiative in the same field. Science is a typical example of such an approach.
But right now we are interested more in political rather than economic incentives, for it is on their basis that the state steers science.
Let’s take a classic example of conservative policy. Such a policy often prioritizes certain values (such as family, traditions, customs, nation, etc.). I will not say that these values mean nothing; for many people, they are very, very important. However, the state and political conservatives often justify absolutely any measures that they believe can protect these values, including measures that negatively affect other values and social spheres. Thus, we often encounter extremely absurd arguments stating that we must control progress and not allow it to be too rapid, as this could disrupt the traditional way of life of society. This not only sounds delusional but also does not work in practice, instead contributing to the destruction of the traditional way of life, which we will discuss below.
I will provide a couple of examples of how the politicization of science harms scientific development.
Nobel laureate James Watson was branded a racist and stripped of several honorary titles for asserting a link between the intelligence quotient and racial origin. Thus, a simple scientific observation was equated with calls for racial discrimination. Naturally, under such conditions, research into the influence of genetics on intelligence becomes hindered.
An even more egregious example is GMO-phobia. Hysteria, maintained at the level of political decisions, makes life extremely difficult for many potential players in this promising market, while a few corporations with serious lobbying capabilities reap superprofits thanks to politicians clearing the market.
But if this were only about transgenic plants, it would be half the battle; however, research related to the genetic modification of humans is also being slowed down. Conservatives thus attempt to protect human nature, but by obstructing small and gradual changes, they only ensure that when science advances enough to no longer be containable, the application of new technologies to change human genetics will become avalanche-like. The difference between enhanced and traditional humans will become too sharp, and this is exactly the scenario that conservatives fear so much.
Thus, the original thesis that the state, unlike a free society, is the only entity capable of ensuring scientific progress turns out to be fundamentally wrong; instead, we see that it is perfectly capable of hindering it.
If a free society proves to be insufficiently strong, and the doctrine of limiting the pace of scientific development remains influential enough, it will lead to humanity simply exhausting the resources currently at its disposal without ever gaining access to new ones, whether through an extensive path of development, such as space expansion, or an intensive one, through a radical increase in humanity’s energy capacity. This would mean the fading of civilization.
However, this is a very unlikely scenario. People usually mobilize quite well in the face of an obvious threat, and when the state itself acts as such an obvious threat, all the worse for it.
Turbulent emotions have a violent end; do not provoke turbulent emotions
Vitaly Tizun, whose brochure Theory of a Free Society I recently reviewed, has released a short video in which he discusses how to promote ancap. I am also working in a similar direction and hope to please you soon with a fresh video from Libertarian band, but Vitaly beat me to it.
https://youtu.be/pnpCDuMVaUE
If the video caught your interest, you can download the leaflet for independent distribution — it briefly summarizes the main message of the video. Of course, this is for the future — who needs leaflets now, while people are staying at home. For security reasons, the leaflet should not be ordered from a professional printing house — print in small quantities, on a printer, and pay in cash.
We are all familiar with the specifics of how the state functions. Its foundation is compulsory and indisputable power over its citizens. This particularly concerns the ability to regulate their activities, apply violence against them, and seize their funds through taxation.
Regardless of how the government system and political mechanisms are implemented, many people are always dissatisfied with the current state of affairs to some extent. And while in a market environment dissatisfaction is resolved simply by renegotiating agreements or switching from one service provider to another, it is not so simple with the state. A person cannot change one state for another as easily, since economic, cultural, linguistic, and other barriers will stand in their way. Because of this, such a change is completely pointless, as for the majority of the population of any state, these barriers are insurmountable, which makes states organizations that compete for people only to a very small degree. This fact confirms the monopoly position of states and all the resulting negative aspects.
An individual also lacks the ability to effectively influence the policy the state pursues toward them. In a market environment, they are able to resolve many issues privately, whereas in the political sphere, their own interests mean nothing; they are obliged to submit to the interests of others. And even if a politician whose plans coincide with their wishes wins an election, or if they themselves become a politician, this only provides the opportunity to support their interests at the expense of infringing upon the interests of other people.
As we can see, the institution of statehood and political methods of management, in contrast to voluntary and market relations, are designed such that the forced and compulsory submission of some people by others is simply inevitable. In fact, the activity of the state is equivalent to the activity of a rapist and a robber. Indeed, it emerged precisely as a nomadic robber who decided to settle in a certain territory and impose his power on the local population through violent methods, as told to us by the stationary bandit theory. The essence of the state fully corresponds to its origin.
What do we get from this? We get that any person who supports the institution of statehood and political methods of management is, in fact, a rapist and a robber themselves. For how else can one call someone who justifies the use of violence and robbery, who considers them natural phenomena? Of course, whether violence and robbery are bad or good phenomena is a purely ethical question, and none of the answers to it can be defined as an objective truth. However, we do not need that; we only need to clearly define who is a supporter of peaceful and voluntary relations, and who supports forced submission and robbery.
Naturally, in current conditions, most people are passive assistants to violence and robbery, since they perceive the state as a natural social institution. It is the revelation of this fact that will allow the positions of the currently existing system to be shaken. For it is one thing when people support violence and robbery without realizing it. However, few are capable of openly admitting themselves to be rapists and robbers; this is the lot of only a minority of people who see nothing wrong in such things, while for the rest, the very concepts of violence and robbery are primarily associated with something immoral.
Using all the above arguments, we can form a psychological strategy for promoting the ideas of freedom. The first stage is the revelation of the fact that the state is a criminal organization specializing in violence and robbery. Next, it is necessary to establish a link between the state and its supporters. Since the state is a rapist and a robber, the people who support it are accomplices in the crimes it commits. Few truly want to be criminals and are capable of declaring (at least to themselves) without any remorse that they are rapists and robbers. The facts mentioned above, since they reveal the link between the criminal state and the person who is at least its passive supporter, are capable of causing psychological discomfort and perhaps even a sense of shame for one’s own complicity in anyone who considers violence and robbery immoral. Thus, in any peace-loving and benevolent person, associations of “state – bandit” and “supporter of the state – also a bandit” should develop. After this, there can be no question of such a person supporting the state; it will be, at the very least, unattractive to them, and possibly even repulsive.
Ancap-chan’s Commentary
Rhetoric addressed more to emotions than to logic does not appeal to me, and I see little value in such argumentation, but value is subjective. I fully admit that some well-meaning statist might indeed be unsettled by these arguments. However, even while sharing the belief that the state is an evil, a statist will believe that the state is the lesser evil. The logic of statists is that without the state, we would get not a peaceful market order, but a rampage of banditry, and only unpleasant types in police caps somehow restrain this very rampage. Yes, they themselves are prone to banditry, but checks, balances, public control and other blah-blah-blah.
What seems far more important to me is the ability to demonstrate the functioning of peaceful market mechanisms in those areas that are weakly subject to state influence, or where the state fails to meet the obligations it has undertaken and for which substantial budgets are spent.
In general, I would soften the premises presented in the text. Not “every accomplice of the state is a bandit,” but “one who defends the right of the state to continue spending money knowingly inefficiently in a sphere where there is a working non-state alternative — that person is truly a conscious accomplice of bandits.”
I read the essay “Theory of a Free Society,” which was recently released by Vitaly Tizun. I was pleased that for a relatively small volume—only 80 thousand characters—the text is very substantial.
Vitaly dedicates the first part to a critique of the state, demonstrating the incompatibility of this institution with the needs of the individual, regardless of the form the state takes.
The second part briefly describes the principles of organizing a free stateless society. I particularly liked the clarity of the section explaining the interconnectedness of subjects—there is a fairly original argument, which is encountered quite rarely, that many of the perceived weak points of ancap are linked to viewing a single transaction in a vacuum, while in reality, there is an entire network of contractual interactions. It is a pity that the section on the institution of reputation does not address the factor of the cost of applying reputational sanctions. Propaganda is propaganda, but it is also useful to analyze the potential weak points of ancap; otherwise, after reading the text, one is left wondering: why is it that such a wonderful social system, which is completely natural, fits everyone perfectly, and is capable of self-maintenance, nonetheless does not dominate anywhere to this day.
The third part explains which factors will contribute to the stability of ancap and prevent the return of the state, whether through market mechanisms or by means of military seizure. The section on the doctrine of deterrence was clearly strongly influenced by the ideas of Bitarch, and you have already read something similar from me.
The fourth part outlines the main strategies for achieving ancap, and here as well, much echoes the videos of Libertarian Band.
Overall, the work is very solid, and I readily recommend it to those who want to get a fairly confident understanding of ancap in a very modest amount of time.
