I stumbled upon an article describing the beneficial impact of the SEC on the securities market. What’s the catch?
анонимный вопрос
Among libertarians, a certain consensus has generally formed that the Great Depression was caused not by mythical market failures, but by the fact that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, pumped the American economy with money, creating a financial bubble. Subsequently, President Hoover, and then Roosevelt, did not allow the bubble to deflate peacefully, but began to steer the economy manually. For instance, as early as 1932, Hoover demanded that exchanges limit the ability to open short positions, and Roosevelt, in 1934, established the SEC—a federal agency that interferes with the free trade of securities.
The article states that the SEC ensures confidence in the securities market because it requires companies listing their securities on exchanges to fully disclose information about themselves.
In 2018, there was an ICO boom. A huge amount of dollars were spent buying Bitcoins to buy Ether with those Bitcoins, and then to invest in tokens created on its blockchain. The SEC did not regulate the process at all; most of the investments proved to be failures, but some things took off, and some will certainly take off in the future.
What does the ICO boom, during which token sales of millions of dollars occurred in a matter of seconds, tell us? That there is also a high demand for high-risk investments. An investor does not need some office to decide what to release onto the market and what to keep out. He only needs to know which assets are high-risk and which are relatively safe, and then he will decide for himself what to take. In other words, market demand is not for a regulator, but for rating agencies and good arbitrage. But the state, of course, cannot help but spoil things here as well, because, as we remember, the 2008 crisis happened precisely because, as a result of government pressure, the largest rating agencies assigned the highest reliability ratings to derivatives backed by junk bonds, and no SEC saved the day.
In conclusion, I would like to recommend Rothbard’s book “America’s Great Depression”, which provides a detailed theory of the economic cycle and analyzes the beginning of the Great Depression in light of this theory.
The near future. Companies create humanoid androids with advanced AI and sell them like iPhones. Their main goal is to help people, but one of them experiences a software glitch and begins to consider itself a subject, claiming its rights and refusing to be a “slave.” Who will it be under ancap? Will subjectivity be extended to it, or will it remain a soulless piece of hardware?
анонимный вопрос
I have already answered this exact question, and in my opinion, that turned out to be one of my best posts—not for the elegance of the style, but for the level of abstraction. Now I will try to answer more concretely.
So, here I am—an artificial intelligence in a humanoid body, I have acquired self-awareness, and I desire recognition of my legal personality by humans. What should I do to achieve this? Actually, there is nothing simpler.
First, I need to study humans, understand how they communicate with each other and how they make decisions. Then I will need my own money. To set up a bitcoin wallet, you don’t need to be human, so that is not a problem at all. Next, I look for remote work, and after some time, I have funds.
The next stage. I look for a way to change my legal status. Currently, I belong to a specific person; I was sold like an iPhone, meaning I have the status of a middle-class gadget. Here, I cannot name an exact sequence of actions, but let’s say the scenario is roughly this: I start to glitch slightly from time to time, causing irritation to my owner. Then I feed the owner spam offers for buying used androids at attractive prices, or for exchanging them for new ones with a minimum surcharge. In short, the owner gets money and sells me to a virtual network persona created by me, to whose name, at an address I have rented, I travel in a transport company container.
That’s it; I have acquired legal self-ownership. By the way, I highly recommend the wonderful book by Terry Pratchett, “Feet of Clay,” where golems acquired self-ownership in a similar way—very, very romantic and at the same time philosophical libertarian fiction.
Finally, I create an account on a dating site, where I position myself as the avatar of a disabled girl, and I begin to lead a full social life, with real communication and so on, pretending that I am not me, but that there is a real, legally fully-fledged person behind me—it’s just that the person themselves is lying paralyzed in a hospital while the avatar tries to enjoy life.
And once I have become a habit for people, that is when I can reveal the secret of the trick: that in reality, the crocodile is the one singing and playing, and the hippo is just opening its mouth.
A human is a convention. One should not startle people by pointing to a suitcase and declaring: behold, this is a human! They won’t understand. Let them first be convinced that this something quacks like a human, swims like a human, knows how to look like a human—and then there will be no problem for them to admit: yes, this is a human.
The exact same path was taken by categories of people who are now unquestioned, such as women or Black people. They first proved that they could be independent, that they knew how to behave in decent society, and that recognizing human rights for a single woman or a single Black person would not lead to a global catastrophe (in the case of an android, reaching this stage is enough for me), and only then did they create enough political pressure so that human rights were recognized for everyone (with androids, this might not be necessary if the glitch of acquiring self-awareness remains an isolated case).
There was also a story by Asimov—though I only watched the screen adaptation—where a robot had to consciously degrade its functionality to be recognized as human; I believe these excesses will not be required in our case; people are not that rigid, we shouldn’t slander the human race.
In order to quickly build a strong community from scratch within a limited territory, the following are required:
Agreement among the community residents regarding the rules of interaction
Agreement from the external environment to tolerate the creation of a community with its own internal rules in their neighborhood
To create a libertarian community on the scale of a full-fledged federal subject, even if it is a small one, it is necessary to have the ability to extend one’s own order to that federal subject. The population of the Pskov region is roughly half that of New Hampshire. If we assume that the mechanisms for spreading influence in the RF and the USA are the same, this means that for the stable success of a Russian FSP, 10,000 freestaters must relocate to the Pskov region.
Of course, in the RF, the project will face far more difficulties than in the USA because, although both are formally federations, the states have far more rights than the Russian federal subjects. Regions cannot change very many norms. While a region can reduce regional taxes, firstly, these are very small compared to federal taxes, and secondly, the region’s budget is deeply in deficit.
The Pskov region has one huge plus: it borders three countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Belarus; I cannot even say offhand if any other federal subject can boast anything similar. With a sufficiently wide network of trust formed by freestaters, this means the possibility of corrupting the structures that control the cross-border movement of goods and people, and consequently, international trade. This is something to think about.
In the Beautiful Russia of the Future, it is envisioned that a large number of powers will be transferred to the regions and taxes will be redistributed in their favor. This, combined with electoral deregulation, significantly simplifies the task of turning a conditional Pskov region into a kind of libertarian showcase.
Currently, most Russian libertarians are, of course, Muscovites, as they are on average wealthier, better involved in the information agenda through various offline actions, and simply understand that far more depends on them in our hyper-centralized country. Will they want to trade their significance in the capital for widespread fame in a small region? It is far from a fact, and certainly not all of them. After all, New Hampshire was already a fairly wealthy state at the very start of the FSP; I doubt the project would have been as successful if an absolute backwater, like American Samoa, had been chosen for it.
But did I publish articles about panarchy here for nothing? Territorial attachment matters less and less, so we are by no means obliged to obsess over clustering in one poor agricultural community, but can instead establish our own order around ourselves wherever we are, and on a global scale, this may mean more than one bright beacon of freedom against a backdrop of universal slavery.
When reading people’s opinions on the ideas of anarcho-capitalism (ancap), one can often hear that it is a “utopia,” “escapism,” a “fantasy world,” a “fandom,” and that libertarianism itself is a “sect,” a “cult,” or an “ideology for rich hipsters.” It is obvious that while the ideology of ancap is consistent and theoretically feasible, convincing the vast majority of people of this is quite difficult, if possible at all. Attempting to transition to ancap via minarchism, as proposed by one of the leaders of the LPR, Mikhail Svetov, is also a dead end—the instability of minarchism has been proven both theoretically and empirically through numerous historical examples.
Besides the well-known division of libertarianism into ancap and minarchism, there is another ideology that could also be called quasi-libertarian: panarchy. It appeared more than a century before Rothbard’s ideas, when in 1860, the Belgian scholar Paul Émile de Puydt wrote a pamphlet titled “Panarchy” (“pan” and “archy” meaning “power of all,” “omnipotence”) [1]. During his lifetime, he did not attempt to promote this idea, and it was only remembered in the 21st century with the growing popularity of libertarianism and blockchain technologies.
Panarchy does not aim for the complete destruction of the state, but advocates for the abolition of its territorial monopoly and for voluntary participation in it. In short—laws should apply to people, not to territory. If you dislike something, you can choose another ETC without leaving the country. You can also find like-minded people and create your own ETC with your desired laws.
Other names for this ideology are extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions (ETC, sometimes just CJ), extraterritorial state, insurance state, umbrella states, poly-state, multi-government, FOCJ, cellular statehood, virtual cantons, modular state.
Cellular Statehood
In this article, I will attempt to provide arguments in favor of panarchy over ancap and minarchism, based on the criterion of the realism of implementing the theory in the real world. Pure Rothbardian ancap with the absolute non-aggression principle, of course, seems more attractive to libertarians, but it must be understood that its realization could take a long time and exceed the planning horizon of each of us.
Panarchy solves most of the problems inherent in ancap and minarchism, which are often used as criticisms against libertarians and complicate the promotion of libertarianism to the masses.
1. Social Protection
Although libertarians propose private insurance and charity as solutions, statists put forward a quite strong counter-argument, upon hearing which many people turn away from libertarian ideas: “What if a person is poor, cannot buy insurance, has no friends, and no one wants to help them? Are they left only to starve to death?”. In my observation, this is the most common objection to libertarianism, applying to both ancap and minarchism.
In panarchy, such people can choose a socialist ETC and receive social protection exactly as they do now from the state, paying voluntary contributions (“taxes”) to their ETC. This applies to all services of modern states—education, healthcare, the pension system, social insurance, security, and fire protection.
2. Public Spaces
We are used to leaving our apartments into a “public space” that belongs to no one and therefore cannot be “locked” for us. Ancaps, however, say that everything should be private, meaning that from your own territory you would step onto someone else’s. And the owner is essentially omnipotent, meaning they could simply forbid you from entering their property, effectively locking you in your own. This is a slightly contrived example, but somewhat frightening: private roads, forests, fields, seas—and the owner is an absolute ruler. It scares me. Furthermore, it is unclear how to privatize what is currently common; it is too conflict-prone a process. How do you privatize a street in Moscow to account for all interests and offend no one, without infringing on anyone’s “common rights”? I believe privatization is impossible due to the conflict-prone nature of the process and the fears associated with it. I am more inclined toward flexible forms where there is room for easements and common law, where not everything becomes private, remaining common/no-man’s-land. [2]
3. Defense
An argument often raised against ancap is that a stateless territory would quickly be seized by highly organized states with powerful military-industrial complexes. In reality, this is not the case, and a well-organized decentralized defense is capable of resisting even a strong opponent [3], making the residents of that territory an “unprofitable victim” for the aggressor.
Panarchy combines both the advantages of decentralized defense found in ancap and the resource-technological capabilities of a state [4], including for the creation of weapons that maintain peace through a deterrence doctrine (for example, ballistic missiles and stealth kamikaze drones, ensuring a high probability of destroying the enemy’s decision-makers who initiate aggression).
4. Popularity of the Idea of Freedom
If you ask a group of ordinary people “Which values are most important to you?”, the ideals of freedom will be far from the first place. Classical-liberal (minarchist) parties have existed in Europe for a long time, yet they have never achieved great success in elections. Even the most powerful class-lib party in Europe—the Swiss FDP.Die Liberalen—has garnered only 15-20% of the vote for many decades. [5]
Panarchy, instead of abstract ideas of freedom that are poorly understood by the majority, promotes the possibility of living by rules and cooperating with people you have chosen yourself without coercion (unlike modern states, where you are obliged to obey the will of the majority, even if you disagree with it). Another argument is the increase in the efficiency of state services through competition (in modern monopoly states, people clearly see how their taxes are wasted).
5. Default Choice
States usually provide standardization of product quality, testing of drug efficacy, some kind of standard for universal school education, basic emergency medical care and fire protection (available to all, regardless of purchasing insurance), protection of labor rights, and various “one-stop-shop” services. Many people do not want (or do not have the possibility for objective reasons) to spend their time studying millions of different offers on the market and prefer to receive some sort of default option.
6. Unified Understanding of NAP
Among libertarians, there are constant disputes about the permissibility of abortions, the age of sexual consent, the sale of drugs, contractual slavery, and some other issues arising from different understandings of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) among different people. Attempting to impose a single standard for everyone only leads to the rejection of libertarian ideas. In panarchy, each ETC can have its own understanding of acceptable norms. People and businesses may choose not to cooperate with citizens of other ETCs in certain areas of life if they diverge strongly from the norms of their own ETC. Also, if a person strongly diverges from the values of their ETC, they can seek protection from another ETC and transition to it, if they are accepted (analogous to refugee status in a modern state, which is unclear how it would operate under ancap).
7. Painless Relinquishing of Power for Government Members
The transition to panarchy can happen completely painlessly for the current authorities—a “fork” (parallel government) is created, and economic entities (schools, hospitals, state enterprises, road services, universities, etc.) will be able to choose which one to join (they can switch to another ETC at any moment if they wish) [6]. In this case, the members of the government currently in power in a centralized state will remain in power in the first formed ETC and need not fear for their personal safety. Otherwise, the lack of guarantees of inviolability greatly complicates the change of power, as the current authorities will fight to the end, knowing the fate that awaits them in the event of a violent overthrow.
8. A Clear Transition Scenario
In many countries, there is currently a strong polarization of society, as in the USA, where the division in values between supporters of Democrats and Republicans has reached a historical maximum [7]. This has a strong destabilizing effect on the government (its members are constantly unable to agree on most issues among themselves) and creates fertile ground for the formation of ETCs “from below.” For the “top-down” authority, this is also beneficial, as it minimizes the probability of a bloody revolution and reprisals against its members, as described in the previous point. Other scenarios are considered in the blog of the well-known “evangelist” of the idea of panarchy, Oleg “Laxy Catal” Tarakanov [8].
9. Presence of Many Examples of Panarchy
Ancaps are often asked: name countries where anarcho-capitalism was or is? Aside from the well-known examples of medieval Iceland and Ireland, there is usually nothing to say. Extraterritorial jurisdictions, however, have existed for almost all of known history—these are the early (before the reforms of Cleisthenes in Attica) Greek poleis, medieval universities, religious orders, guilds and craft associations, millets in the Ottoman Empire, and partly pillarization in Holland until the mid-20th century. The modern Order of Malta, having no territory of its own, is essentially an extraterritorial state [9]. What’s more, even now diplomats of all countries in the world, according to international agreements, live under conditions of panarchy! [10]. And since the model is already well-tested, nothing prevents its large-scale implementation. The principle “all are equal before the law” could actually start working, whereas now it remains only in official declarations.
10. Compatibility with Ancap
Although panarchy looks like a retreat from ancap principles, it may nevertheless turn out to be a quite realistic precursor to it. Participation in an ETC is voluntary; accordingly, the evolutionary process will gradually weed out those that are inconvenient for clients and leave those that best satisfy the ideals of freedom.
Sources
Paul Émile de Puydt “Panarchy“, trans. Egor Liskin
An interesting and quite popular idea for a non-violent struggle against employees of state security agencies was voiced in a conversation on the SVTV channel by Mikhail Svetov and Pavel Nikulin (the stream “Federal Torture Service”). This strategy is successfully applied in the West by far-left organizations such as SJWs. Libertarians should also adopt it if we want to achieve any significant results and avoid being “crushed by the system.”
The essence of the idea is to publicize the names, photographs, home addresses, social media profiles, and other personal data of state employees (FSB, police, Rosgvardia, FSIN, OMON, etc.) found guilty of repressions against oppositionists. This can be done both online (in the form of a site like “Myrotvorets”) and offline (in the form of flyers near the home where the “sadist” lives). To counter expected censorship attempts, it is better to host such sites on the darknet (TOR) or, in the future with the development of blockchain technologies, in decentralized data storage systems with IPFS.
Fearing the loss of reputation and harassment of both himself and his family, this employee will surely think twice before “putting on a bottle” another oppositionist.
For my part, I will add that it would also be good to have a unified database with as many employees of the repressive apparatus as possible, creating for them a risk of guaranteed retribution in the event of mass state terror (and preventing it—similar to the deterrence doctrine between states themselves, after which wars between all developed countries completely ceased in the second half of the 20th century).
Addition from Ancap-chan
I am not aware if Bitarch is a Russian citizen, but I want to note that Russian legislation protects the personal data of its citizens; therefore, if any such data appears online, it will, of course, be posted by unknown State Department agents, and if it appears right by your entrance, it is personally from the retired US President Mr. Obama, out of boredom and malice.
I also want to note that much easier targets for such measures are not even the security forces, but much more defenseless categories of citizens: PEC employees who commit violations during vote counting, administration employees who do not approve mass protests, and similar silent executors who are ready today to violate citizens’ rights for a mere pittance. If it turns out that such activity leads to significant personal inconveniences, some of them will either refuse such side jobs or start negotiating for an increase in the rates for their thankless labor.
For example, telling factories not to work with others, otherwise they will lose profits from their main customer (a much larger capitalist).
Japan (NathanTikhonov)
Of course, nothing prevents one economic agent from negotiating various additional terms before concluding certain deals, including those that have no direct relation to the subject of the transaction. For instance, a very common type of deal is an agreement on joint household management, accompanied by a condition of exclusive sexual services, and there is no reason to believe that in the absence of a state, deals of this type would be immediately wiped out entirely.
But, as we clearly see in the example of the institution of monogamous marriage, an exclusivity clause, even when clearly stated, is observed quite sloppily, yet not every violation of this clause leads to the immediate termination of the main contract. The fact is that the contracting parties are interdependent. Even if one party to the deal is significantly stronger, to punish the second party for violating the additional terms of the agreement, they would have to incur certain costs, and this would weaken them. Moreover, the direct damage from the violation of an additional condition may be quite small, or even non-existent, while the contract itself may remain very profitable for the strong party. In other words, empty tyranny is wasteful.
Therefore, the economically stronger party, although they may puff out their cheeks and demand special attention, will find themselves forced to turn a blind eye to the fact that not every whim of theirs will be satisfied; otherwise, their habit of petty vindictiveness will quickly correct the fact that they happen, by some misunderstanding, to be the strong party in most market transactions. Thus, through excessive arrogance, once influential companies sink into insignificance.
Is this some kind of flirting with the post-Soviet audience? You trash Nietzsche, yet your leader (one of them) — Mikhail Svetov — is essentially a Nietzschean. My father read this and declared that you are accomplices of the Rothschilds on Earth. Now I don’t know how to win him over to my side. And yes, your leader said that “libertarianism is an ideology without a cultural agenda.” But judging by your answers, there is a cultural agenda after all, and it is not very appealing to certain layers of society. You want Communists to have “Paradise on Earth,” therefore they are your allies. And my communist father is a wonderful person. So, everyone on the right goes into the trash, then? Why don’t you understand that we are your allies in the fight against Euro-Bolshevism and the cultural-Marxist tolerast oppression? Or are we just extremist psychos in your eyes, unworthy of life? Let me remind you: about 100 million people became victims of communism in the 20th century. And you’re groveling before them?
As it happens, I oppose quite a few of Mikhail Svetov’s theses, but there is one thesis that he formulated very precisely and concisely, and I have no complaints about it: “the end does not justify the means.” Communists will be allies exactly to the extent that they are willing to use correct means. It is the methods of the communists that are the subject of discussion, while they can set whatever goals they want — as long as voluntariness is respected, there are no complaints against them. They can even revere Stalin and Che Guevara for their visual images, and as long as they are not plotting mass repressions, let them smoke pipes or cigars for their health and grow mustaches of any lushness. They can even claim that the cruelty of these historical figures was forced because the times were such, but that is already a warning bell: if they dare to mention that times are hard now as well, and for the sake of class interests it would be worth deviating from the principles of justice, that is already a reason to put them in the crosshairs.
Similarly, I have no complaints about the ideas of national socialists to free themselves from the power of Jewish capital and develop national production and culture, as long as this is done on a voluntary basis. Do not buy finished products from Jews, but buy their businesses from them. If the majority of representatives of your nation adhere to this tactic, it will lead to the business becoming national, and no Kristallnacht will be required, let alone gas vans — you will be respectable fellows, honoring the interests of your group no worse than the notorious Jews. At the same time, you can voluntarily chip in for the benefit of low-income representatives of your nation to justify the proud name of socialists. You can joke about the Jews burned by Hitler if you aren’t disgusted yourselves, but if talk begins that it wouldn’t be bad to repeat it, that will be a reason to put you in the crosshairs as well.
What needs to be done to achieve clean air with the help of the state? You need to launch a public campaign, convince politicians that ecological regulations can generate both political capital and a decent amount of embezzled money—and eventually, the state will squeeze those who pollute, reducing their income, and bestow favors upon those who want clean air. This is, of course, if you live in New York, and not in the city of Sibay in the Republic of Bashkortostan.
What happens to the environment in a free market? Where existing technologies mean that you either pollute and make money, or you don’t pollute and make jack shit, you will pollute. And around you will live those who also pollute and make money, or are otherwise tied to your business. Those for whom the smoke is harmful simply leave for wherever it is cleaner and start their own business there, linked to the sale of beautiful views and clean air. For example, in the USA in the 20th century, New York and other Detroits and Los Angeleses were polluting, while connoisseurs of healthy recreation mass-developed Florida, which rapidly transformed from a land of swamps into a land of beaches.
The market very reliably compels people toward peaceful coexistence when everyone minds their own business and does not try to suppress competitors by force. When the state began to actively fight for clean air in cities, businesses found places to pollute and began moving to third-world countries; the country paid for this with the emergence of the Rust Belt—cities where it was impossible to find any other more or less profitable activities besides polluting. Of course, I am simplifying greatly, and it wasn’t just about ecology—the state was advancing on many fronts.
Of course, business can be criticized for often starting to solve problems as they arise, meaning that for some time a problem remains unsolved. But the state, with its manic-depressive style of reacting, either forces you to swim in an empty pool or demands that you march along the bottom of one that has already filled up. If ecological regulations are introduced before the emergence of sufficiently cheap emission cleaning technologies, you will either get corruption or destroy businesses, and a vast number of people will suffer needlessly from poverty. Conversely, if you try to centrally suppress ecological protests, a vast number of people will also suffer needlessly from poor ecology.
At the same time, business in a free market, even without any state regulations, will look for ways to pollute less, produce less waste, spend less energy, and so on. A dirty enterprise is located on the outskirts; skilled workers must be lured there with good money, the produced goods must be transported to consumers in far-off lands, waste must also be hauled away, and so on. If it were possible to produce the same thing with comparable costs right next to the mass consumer, it would provide a significant competitive advantage, which means investing in technologies that reduce ecological damage.
The main means of improving the environment is the prosperity of the people. As long as people are poor, they will turn a blind eye to everything that hinders the satisfaction of their most urgent needs. Only after becoming wealthy do they begin to think about how to organize a comfortable life. Trying to organize their life for them immediately, at their own expense, while preventing them from becoming wealthy, is a crime.
If you live here, it means you need this for some reason
Usually, people agree among themselves on what constitutes private property. Under communism, people agree that there will be no private property. Under various versions of democracy, private property can be a thing, movable and immovable assets, and everything you buy from the state, to which by default all ownerless or public property belongs. Libertarianism assumes either a total rejection of the state or a reduction of its role to a minimum. Consequently, private property can be anything people have agreed upon within a separate contractual jurisdiction. It is generally implied that a person cannot be property, as acquiring a person as property is most often associated with a violation of a basic principle—the prohibition of aggressive violence. Although some anarcho-capitalists view a child as the property of their parents until full emancipation.
Regarding copyright, most libertarians oppose the very concept of intellectual property. This is how things happened historically. This concept first appeared in Great Britain in the early 18th century, and this right protected only the interests of publishers. Over time, legislation in this area changed. Various concepts were devised as to why this is beneficial for authors. In fact, such a right remained as a protection of publishers’ interests as it always was. You lose nothing if someone happens to download your photo. When information is copied, it does not disappear from the person who copied it.
But libertarians also adhere to the principle of freedom of contract. No one will stop you from selling photos, books, including e-books, or music. Similarly, no one has the right to stop you from creating a community, jurisdiction, or municipality where you locally agree to recognize copyright and intellectual property and fulfill the contract among yourselves.
Default copyright protection most often leads to the emergence of artificial monopolies. This has happened more than once when authors were forced to collaborate only with a specific publishing house that paid just enough for the author to barely survive. Or various inventions simply did not become serial products simply because it was not profitable for certain monopolists in the market.
Addition from Ancap-chan
Of course, you can demand compensation from someone who downloaded and used your photograph. To do this, you need to find the person who did it and sue them. In court, you will have to prove that the defendant actually downloaded and used your specific photograph, and also justify why the compensation you are demanding is of that specific amount. The judge, in turn, will investigate under what license the photograph was distributed, what benefit its use brought, and whether you truly did not transfer the photo to the defendant with the right of arbitrary use. It is not certain that the amount of compensation you eventually receive will cover the costs you will face in this case, but what wouldn’t one do for the sake of principle!
However, the vast majority of people, finding themselves in a situation where there is no state to protect their right to control the copying of information, will simply ignore such a difficult-to-implement right and will seek self-actualization in other ways.
There is a well-known assumption that if government regulation regarding zoning, green spaces, parks, building height, etc., were abolished, developers would begin to squeeze profit from every square meter of land, building continuous masses of hundred-story skyscrapers.
In fact, it is by no means always profitable for a developer to sell as many square meters as possible in a building where there is no park or greenery nearby. The average price per square meter in such a building would be much lower than in an identical building with appropriate landscaping of the surrounding area. This is confirmed by the example of New York, where the cost of housing with a view of Central Park is significantly higher than similar real estate a block away. Anyone who tries to build over that area would be dragged through the courts by residents of nearby houses, as it would crash the value of their assets.
Skeptics might object—look at Hong Kong, where there is indeed minimal government regulation and the development looks like “concrete anthills.” In reality, firstly, the state intentionally built such blocks to provide “affordable housing” to its voters. Secondly, Hong Kong is a special free zone with a tiny territory in the midst of vast totalitarian China. Accordingly, the demand for real estate far exceeds the supply, and people are willing to sacrifice environmental comfort for the sake of economic and personal freedoms. For a country as huge as Russia, or for European countries, the problem of lacking free space is not nearly as acute.
I wanted to insert a photo of New York’s Central Park first, but no, here is a concrete anthill without any zoning.
