Is it permissible to cover others’ treasures?

Look, check this out. I have a friend who works as an admin (sort of) in a restaurant. She’s a seasoned user herself. People are constantly leaving “stashes” there, and being experienced, she naturally spots them and takes them for herself. Then the guys show up and get disappointed.

goldstein

“Zakladki” (dead drops) are a genius technology for creating a logical break in trade and logistics chains when acquiring prohibited goods. Anya packages Boris’s goods and hides them wherever she deems appropriate, receiving a reward from Boris for every hidden stash. Vera transfers bitcoins to Hydra and receives an algorithm for finding the stash. After confirming that the stash has been found, she instructs Hydra to transfer the previously deposited bitcoins to Boris. All of this is further reinforced by dispute mechanisms, reviews, penalties for Anya from Boris for poor stashes, and other ingenious mechanics.

At every stage, all participants face risks. Anya can be caught with the goods. Vera can be caught with the goods. Vera might not find the stash. An unfound stash might be relocated, or a refund might be denied, which means costs for either Boris or Vera. Finally, Boris might be an undercover officer, and his reputation will depend on how quickly Hydra bans his shop.

Naturally, because possession of a stash entails state sanctions, it is legally ownerless. Anya, Vera, and Boris will all fiercely deny any connection between themselves and a piece of substance attached with a magnet under a table, and will disclaim any ownership rights to it—if asked by the state, which is formally the guarantor of private property rights on its territory. Dasha, who finds someone else’s stash, will deny her ownership rights to it no less fiercely. She was simply cleaning her assigned area, found some junk, has no idea what it is, mechanically put it in her pocket, and forgot to throw it in the trash.

Nevertheless, Anya, Boris, Vera, and Hydra sincerely and with full justification hate Dasha, and all the more so the more systematic her activity is: she increases costs across the entire chain, thereby contributing to higher prices for an already expensive product. If Vera or Anya catches Dasha, they will not doubt for a moment their right to use violence against her.

Such, in short, are the customs of this very peculiar market, where everyone proudly bears their own risks, yet everyone, guided by their own selfish interests, does everything to ensure the market continues its uninterrupted operation, multiplying the wealth of all its participants. Even Dasha.

After all, Dasha also has her boss, Fyodor Ovchinnikov. He is not involved at all; he sells people delicious pizza. And by clearing the pizzeria’s territory of dangerous stashes, Dasha helps reduce his risks. If Dasha reported this to him, he would say thank you. But in this system, all chains of cause and effect are broken, so Fyodor will never know what he owes to his brave admin.

P.S. Usually, I use an English sequence of character names to describe such mechanisms, but “zakladki” is a purely Russian technology, so today I have every reason to show some patriotism.

Insult the authorities – earn a bitcoin

A video with an interesting initiative has appeared on the “Dobroum-TV” YouTube channel. Anyone who wishes can, downloading and printing a flyer, distribute it in the mailboxes of an apartment building, verifying this action with a video recording, and then send the resulting proofs via direct message to a specially created Telegram account, and receive a reward in Bitcoin at a price of approximately 10 rubles per flyer.

Of course, you won’t make much money from such work, because small-batch printing will eat up most of the reward. The feeling of moral satisfaction received is far more important.

Those who enjoy this activity can also have fun by pasting anarchist stickers. To do this, you need to contact a special Telegram bot, which ensures anonymous communication. You will be provided with stickers; all you have to do is complete the quest of creatively pasting them in various unexpected places.

Finally, you can also take your own initiative to decorate your city with various creative works, from graffiti to tombstones for Putin, or set up a fund to pay for such activities. The latter is especially convenient if you are physically outside Russian jurisdiction but do not agree to simply passively observe what is happening in your homeland. A government that legislatively prohibits showing disrespect toward it looks especially funny and ridiculous, so why deny yourself the pleasure of having some fun?

How will a country without a state represent itself to other states?

Choosing a private representative? An armed population is great, but tanks, planes, and missiles—who sells them, who buys them, and consequently, who stores them? And obviously, how does a private individual profit from this? Donations? Or will they offer to protect a certain part of the population? Quite strange. Military personnel will go, for example, into various PMCs and become mercenaries, but what about deterrent weapons? A private individual will be paid from the outside, and that’s it. Kaput. Cosmopolitanism is cool, but this scenario is quite real. Again, terrorist attacks carried out for the purpose of intimidation, or due to disagreement with the population based on certain criteria. Who will investigate them? Private security organizations that engage in security activities? People who are interested in what happened? Quite likely. What about firefighters, who are supposed to arrive after the fact? They arrive, but the homeowner is gone, or simply doesn’t exist because the plot of land is a wasteland. Let it burn? Will the city saved from the fire pay them via donations? “Donations” is a crude word, but essentially, if people aren’t obligated to pay for it, they will more likely pay into insurance, and the insurance companies will handle it? Consequently, each insurance company will have its own ties with firefighters, etc. Okay, I answered that myself. But as for weapons of mass destruction and heavy military equipment, it’s still unclear.

Royal hacker

It is quite difficult to answer such broad questions, so I will focus on the very first part.

Indeed, there is a rather peculiar service that seemingly only a state can provide to a person: the service of representation before another state. States do not consider citizens of other states to be subjects of treaties. They negotiate with other states, while citizens and companies act as objects of agreements. This applies to trade tariffs and regulations, visa regimes, and the extradition of criminals. How can the market respond to such rudeness?

Fortunately, states can make decisions regarding foreigners not only in a bilateral but also in an autistic mode. For example, issuing an order that products receiving certain certificates are not subject to customs duties. This means nothing prevents the company issuing the certificates from working with influence groups in those countries that are of interest as a sales market. Similarly, some consortium of travel agencies could work with lobbyists regarding a visa-free regime for buyers of certain tour packages. In general, the task looks difficult but solvable, although it seems more likely to me to obtain visas by purchasing some convenient citizenship (and the more wealthy apatrides wanting to travel there are in the market, the more various small island states will compete for them, and due to the volume, the price of the matter will quite quickly drop to a quite acceptable level).

It is more difficult with the pursuit of criminals. I once wrote about the functions of a prison under ancap, arguing that the criminal needs it primarily as a refuge from retribution. If a criminal has the opportunity to flee to the territory of a state, they effectively receive the same refuge, just without being locked within four walls. On the other hand, the state in terms of protection is a prison for the poor. That is, protection exists, but it is purely nominal. So, if someone hiding on the territory of a state manages to be discovered (which is a quite feasible and legal task for private detective agencies, which they can perfectly perform on the territory of a state), then one can either enter negotiations with them or deal with them in one way or another, since state structures are unlikely to be able to or want to protect them. Finally, one can threaten the criminal not with retribution, but with deportation to the state whose citizenship they acquired to cross the border, and there they can be judged by a state court. A mediocre solution, but threatening to hand one bandit over to other bandits for retribution if they don’t compensate for the damages is more or less permissible.

The rest of your long question is mainly devoted to issues of the use and sale of heavy weaponry. Nothing prevents a private company, operating on stateless territory, from producing weapons and legally supplying them to the territories of states if appropriate contracts are concluded with buyer companies (defense ministries can also act as such). Of course, national armies usually follow standards, and if a specific tank model has been adopted for armament, pushing through a procurement decision for another model is quite a hassle. But these are issues that are already being solved without state patronage, so under ancap, arms companies will handle this—they aren’t children.

As for the purchase of heavy weaponry by some hypothetical ancap PMCs, I personally do not believe in the market justification for such purchases, but I cannot provide clear arguments. Perhaps a few PMCs on stateless territory will go all out; after all, a tank biathlon is a quite monetizable show, something to keep them occupied in peacetime.

April 12

They say that in the past, in the USSR, it was a nationwide holiday, but now it has lost its drive and in many ways has acquired the mood of “Sorry, Yura, we fucked everything up.”

No. The state fucked everything up. The “market” gradually crept into space, and once the market arrives somewhere, it settles in seriously and for the long haul. At first, private companies simply held contracts for state space companies. Then they started buying satellite launches from state companies. Then they learned to launch satellites themselves. They are just about to launch the first human. They have already launched a lunar expedition, albeit unsuccessfully.

Private space exploration is happening unobtrusively. In some places, it is the whim of a billionaire, in some it is the donations of enthusiasts, and in some it is a normal profitable business—and this, of course, is the most solid basis for expansion.

All of this applies to Russia as well. So S7 Space, Dauria Aerospace, or some other Russian private space companies will certainly enter the bright market paradise. And Roscosmos will simply die.

Happy holiday!

*And the romance of space isn’t going anywhere. Starman sends his regards to Yuri Gagarin.*

Sealand and its oddities

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

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

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

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

Crises. Where to lay some straw?

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

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

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

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

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

Extraterritorial identity. The example of the Netherlands.

Bitarch’s Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary by Ancap-chan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immanuel Kant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harambe

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

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

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

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

Ukraine as a trendsetter

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

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

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

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