The default, most striking example is Van Gogh—but even that is very relative. How does the market decide on art? Of course, it may be unfair that talented musicians are shut down by the FSB (although they become popular), or unfair that there are provincial artists whom nobody knows about. Tell us about art under an ideal ancap. How does the market decide on art?
Yan Libertine
The ability to create, that is, to invent and produce something that did not exist before, will be valued by those who find what currently exists insufficient. Van Gogh’s tragedy was not that he dedicated his life to creativity, but that his form of self-expression was in low demand among his contemporaries. It is his sacred right to create what he wishes to create, using what he has acquired through legitimate means. However, if he wishes to sell the fruits of his creativity to someone, he will still have to find someone willing to buy it.
A characteristic of many creative natures is their impracticality. Van Gogh himself claimed that a painter’s worst enemy is the art dealer. A creator working on commission considers their own vision far more important and significant than the opinion of the client. It is not surprising that this quite often leads to conflicts. A creator working by the call of inspiration often does not even consider who might need the result of their work or why.
But everything I just wrote about creators can also be applied to an entrepreneur. Similarly, instead of working for a boss, they venture into the free market, assuming that their product will be more in demand. They say nine out of ten companies close after their first year of operation, so the market is no more merciful to entrepreneurs than it is to artists. Both act under conditions of future uncertainty, assuming they know better than others what people need and how to provide it.
But, besides entrepreneurs who wish to directly create something new, there are people who wish to help in the creation of the new. Artists are helped by patrons. Innovative entrepreneurs are helped by venture capitalists. Some are driven by the desire to earn from breakthrough projects, believing their intuition works better than the market average. Some are obsessed with the idea of making the world a better place. Some are driven by vanity. Some simply have warm feelings for the creator. Van Gogh, for example, was helped by his brother Theo.
The attempt to organize state support for creators instead of private patronage leads to the appearance of stifling monstrosities like the USSR Union of Writers, the USSR Union of Artists, and the USSR Union of Composers. Choosing between pop art and opportunistic art, I would still prefer pop, although I would prefer not to choose between these two options at all, since the world is infinitely more diverse, and adhering to the mainstream is by no means mandatory.
Especially since technology has already largely neutralized the factor of provincialism, as the internet is global. The tools for monetizing art under ancap will, for the most part, be the same as they are now. This includes eBay, Patreon, or even something like DeviantArt—in short, it’s impossible to list them all.
Greetings. I have a few concerns regarding ancap (or rather, regarding the anarchic part). First, is anarchy possible within a single state (territory)? Have there been such cases in history? How long did they last? Second, if the anarchic movement comes to power worldwide, could it happen that communities grow into the well-known states, and creating one’s own would be extremely difficult? Third, who will decide the important issues that the state solves today? No, I’m not talking about roads. I’m talking about money (who will handle its emission?), about emigration and immigration (will there be equivalents of visa centers, who will deal with this), about basic documents (will passports exist, who will issue them?), and who will handle ecology (often, to extract the maximum profit, it is better to use environmentally harmful means as they are simply cheaper)?
Kirill
Possibility of Anarchy
I have repeatedly written that law is rooted in human relationships and is determined by the willingness to tolerate certain actions on the part of other people. Is anarchy possible in some more or less distinct territory? Yes, if a critical number of residents of that territory are unwilling to tolerate “archy”—that is, compulsory management, the seizure of resources under the pretext of government needs, and everything else that accompanies the state.
Have there been such cases in history? Two fairly prolonged ones are well-documented: Ireland and Iceland. In both cases, instead of a state, there was what would now be called contractual jurisdictions, where people had a choice of whom exactly to turn to for conflict resolution and how exactly to coordinate their actions.
The world has now become much more globalized, and for an anarchic society to feel secure, it is not necessary to live compactly in a specific territory. Although many know from personal experience how much it helps when you are physically surrounded by like-minded people and you can afford exactly the lifestyle you prefer, knowing that you will find understanding and support among those around you. So, the pull toward territorial communities will remain, but they have no need to strive for considerable geographical extent; it is unlikely to be on a scale larger than a city.
Transformation of Society into a State
Do I fear that such poleis (the word “community” has been distorted by mutual responsibility, which facilitates its oppression by an external aggressor, so I would prefer not to use it) will turn into states? In conditions of global informational connectivity? In conditions where extraterritorial societies exist alongside territorial ones? You know, I find that doubtful; it’s roughly like fearing that birds will become dinosaurs again. The conditions are not the same. The short era of states is ending. (And, I hope, I don’t need to further explain that “polis” is a conventional name; real territorial anarchic societies will only slightly resemble ancient models)
Visas
Will some poleis provide access to outsiders only by special invitation? Yes, it is quite possible. Whoever invited them is responsible for the guest—this is a simple and natural mechanism that works perfectly without any state, its visa centers, and officials issuing entry permits.
Private Money
Money in the form of cryptocurrencies already circulates perfectly in a private manner; I see no reason why they should stop doing so, since the technology allows it.
Ecology
Ecology is a complex of knowledge and technologies applied to transform nature in such a way that humans can live most comfortably under the new conditions. Accordingly, the more people live in a certain territory and the wealthier they live, the higher the demand for ecology, and the fewer, the lower. Therefore, in territories where no one lives and no one claims, there is the least demand for any ecological transformations. It could be a primitive wilderness or a smoke-belching plant; however, where demand for ecology appears, there will be a nature reserve, a well-maintained park, a lawn convenient for lounging on the grass, a flower in a pot, or simply walls painted in a cheerful green color and a kitten in a phone app—depending on the extent to which elements of living nature are demanded in a specific place.
A conventional community of lovers of life among greenery in a modern city
Among many oppositionists, there is an opinion that it is enough to do in Russia “as in Europe” and we will live almost in paradise. They usually praise Western countries for the separation of powers, honest courts, a transparent budget, smart regulation, fair taxes, freedom of speech, and many other things missing in the RF. But some of these people then begin to notice that all those achievements, for which they were ready to leave their homes, are slowly but surely fading even in their beloved West, let alone being transferred to Russia.
Why does this happen, and why is it pointless to wait for the state to improve, just as it is pointless to emigrate? I am ready to propose a hypothesis based on thoughts from the lectures of the famous sociologist Ella Paneyakh (they are on YouTube). I cannot guarantee the absolute accuracy of this hypothesis, but I believe the probability of it being true is over 99%.
In her lectures, Ella explains the theory of the stationary bandit, explaining the positive (creative, progressive) vector along which the state guided society as a necessity for military superiority over other stationary bandits. If one of them preferred traditional values and obscurantism, while another preferred progress and human rights, the latter would sooner or later achieve technological superiority over the former. Ultimately, traditionalists and supporters of a “brutal” violent hierarchy were simply conquered by more progressive states. Since the development of technology is impossible without respect for the individual and human rights, states were forced to adopt the best practices for ensuring personal freedoms from one another, increasing trust in the tax system through a transparent budget, creating social elevators for youth, fighting corruption, and offering asylum to defectors.
After World War II, as a result of the emergence of the doctrine of deterrence through the threat of mutually assured destruction, wars between more or less developed countries ceased completely. After all, no politician will dare to start a war if they know they themselves can be destroyed. As a result, the incentive to develop and create better conditions for their own citizens disappeared. After all, no one is threatening you, and your own population can be suppressed even with ordinary batons and tear gas.
The lack of an incentive to develop does not mean a stop in the competition of state practices; it is just that now states adopt methods of oppressing their own citizens from one another — hidden taxes, internet censorship, fighting protests and rallies, social ratings, surveillance, etc. You have probably noticed that some of these appeared first here and then in the West, others vice versa. But in general, both here and in the West, the volume of rights and freedoms is gradually, and at an increasingly rapid pace, decreasing. Emigration becomes pointless, because after a certain amount of time, all those shortcomings for which you left will also appear in your new location.
How can we bring back the competition of positive practices? By getting rid of the territorial monopoly of the state and moving to a system of extra-territorial contractual jurisdictions (ETCJs), we will create an incentive for individual ETCJs to compete for citizens. After all, switching to another ETCJ would be as simple as changing a mobile operator. Consequently, the managements of these companies will be interested in offering the best conditions for citizens.
Friends, thank you so much for being with me in the past year! Today marks exactly seven months since the project’s birth. It is already time to summarize some results.
The project has nearly five hundred subscribers on Telegram, nearly fifty on Twitter, and nearly a hundred on Facebook. This is modest. Next year, I want to pay more attention to viral content, whose task is simple — to be reposted and attract people to the main resource, where a more thoughtful acquaintance will take place.
The format of regular answers to readers’ questions, interspersed with separate notes, has proven itself excellent. I judge this primarily by the fact that new questions come in constantly, and the queue has stretched a month ahead. Your donations also help me understand that I am doing the right thing.
A community has gradually formed around the project, which not only inspires me to continue my activities but also greatly helps in the work. For instance, I have a permanent co-author, several consultants on specialized issues, regular authors of interesting questions — and simply a large number of well-wishers.
I will be glad to read your congratulations, wishes, and cooperation proposals in the comments or in the chat. I will be even happier to see reposts of any project materials on some active platforms.
I received a postcard of extreme kawaiiness for the New Year
The economic crisis that began in 2014 hit the Russian mechanical engineering industry hard. Compared to 2008, the situation for enterprises was complicated by political sanctions against Russia. On one hand, the twofold drop in the ruble became a positive factor, increasing the cost of similar foreign machines and reducing competition in the domestic market for domestic producers. On the other hand, imported components, on which the production of Russian equipment heavily depends, became more expensive. The cost of mechanical engineering products rose. Manufacturing plants became concerned with import substitution, but so far this task has not been solved.
Another negative factor was the decline in economic needs. With the exception of orders placed by the military-industrial complex and state corporations, the rest of the market slumped sharply. Total demand for the products of mechanical engineering companies decreased more than it did in 2008.
Unlike our enterprises, foreign companies quickly reoriented and began to additionally stimulate demand for their products in Russia by introducing new financial services. They began providing buyers with unprecedented discounts, long-term interest-free installments, leasing, and practicing other methods to stimulate purchasing activity.
In the crisis situation, domestic companies chose different tactics. A number of enterprises (for example, a crane manufacturing plant in Chelyabinsk) diversified sharply, changing their assortment and concentrating efforts on exports and working with key clients. However, most mechanical engineering companies preferred to sharply reduce the amount of products manufactured, focusing on various ways to optimize expenses and reduce costs.
One of the enterprises caught in the whirlwind of these economic events and experiencing the negative consequences of the crisis was the Mashinstroy holding (name changed).
About the company
The Mashinstroy production holding has a long history and tradition. It includes production enterprises, a design bureau, and its own sales unit. The holding produces tractors, municipal equipment, bulldozers, and special-purpose equipment for the military-industrial complex with a fairly wide range of modifications. It is one of the few mechanical engineering companies in Russia that has preserved the engineering competencies and production base necessary for producing modern products.
Sales Market
Mashinstroy works with customers from Russia and small developing countries, to which sales are carried out largely through political channels. The competitive environment in which it offers its products is not very saturated. On one hand, there are Western manufacturers, whose equipment, after the fall of the ruble, exceeds the cost of similar products from the holding by 30% or more; on the other, there are Chinese plants, whose equipment is lower in quality and currently not widespread in Russia.
Management
The mechanical engineering holding consists of a number of independent enterprises located in different regions of Russia. They are managed by a management company located in Yekaterinburg. The powers of plant directors are limited to solving only operational issues. All strategic tasks are formed in the management company. In most cases, all communications between enterprises were also carried out through the management company.
The formalized development strategy of the mechanical engineering holding became irrelevant under the current conditions. A new anti-crisis strategy has not been adopted. In this situation, each head of an enterprise within the holding independently seeks solutions to exit the crisis.
Finances
A high level of fixed costs remained in the holding. At the same time, product output dropped sharply, leading to a fall in turnover and profitability. High indebtedness and the inability to take new bank loans increased the need for working capital. For this reason, the deadlines for several contracts were missed. Against this backdrop, financial flows decreased even further.
Personnel
As a result of the reduction in production volumes, salaries fell in most divisions of the holding. Key specialists began to resign. The level of motivation and engagement of personnel dropped sharply. Gradually, some enterprises began switching to a part-time work week, which served as another push for the resignation of several important specialists.
Products
The range of products is quite wide: municipal, agricultural, quarry, and construction equipment. In addition, a number of enterprises have competencies in producing military equipment. The engineering company constantly develops new equipment, including innovative types. New modifications of existing products are constantly being developed, and models that have proven themselves in the market are being updated.
General Situation
Starting from 2014, the situation in the holding has been constantly deteriorating. A shortage of working capital makes it impossible to ensure the deadlines for existing contracts. Despite the demand for the holding’s equipment, the ability of the enterprises to meet the needs of the mechanical engineering market has also decreased. Parallel to this, the capacity of the Russian market is shrinking.
In the absence of an actual strategy in the field of sales and marketing, a large amount of work-in-progress has accumulated, which, against the backdrop of a shortage of working capital, further exacerbates the situation of the mechanical engineering holding.
With rapidly falling turnover, the holding’s fixed costs remained at the previous level for quite a long time. Profitability began to drop rapidly, going into the negative within a year. Having a large loan portfolio, the holding began to delay loan payments. Delays in salary payments appeared in each of the business units at the enterprise.
Questions
What solutions do you see for bringing the Mashinstroy holding out of the crisis?
How should these solutions be integrated into the overall development strategy of the holding?
Answer
1. What are the downsides of this type of enterprise organization, such as a holding? First and foremost—transfer pricing. The owner of a holding always has the temptation to sell the products of one of their enterprises to another of their enterprises not at a market price, but at an undervalued one. What does such a protectionist policy lead to? Exactly the same thing that protectionism at the state level leads to. The holding’s enterprises become less competitive compared to their direct competitors in the global market, as they may not care much about sales. Why bother if the buyer is “one of their own”? They will buy anyway.
During a period of economic growth, this all seems like trivia, but in a crisis, there are no trivialities.
Thus, the first and obvious direction of optimization is increasing the autonomy of the holding’s enterprises.
2. A crisis is always characterized by a decrease in the share of CAPEX and an increase in the share of OPEX in enterprise budgets. So, the second obvious direction of optimization will be reorienting from the finished products market to the production of spare parts, warranty and post-warranty service; as for finished equipment, the goal should be not so much to fight for the shrinking Russian market as to push into the global market with all possible strength.
3. A strong point of Russian mechanical engineering is still a fairly powerful design school. It makes sense to negotiate with the Chinese about production in China based on Russian projects. Yes, this means that the holding’s design units act directly to the detriment of the production units. From the perspective of social obligations, it is not very “comme il faut” to reduce labor-intensive production, but from the perspective of the holding owner, developing a potentially more high-margin research and design direction is certainly profitable.
4. When the price of labor drops even further compared to the Chinese, production in Russia can be resumed, and “made in Russia” mechanical engineering products can be sold in the Celestial Empire, which sounds fantastic for now, but the Russian leadership is confidently moving the country in exactly this direction. Of course, this will mean the entry of Chinese comrades into the capital of the corresponding enterprises of the holding. It is also possible that the enterprises could be offloaded to them entirely, and even for a relatively decent price. Of course, this move might not work, because you never know exactly when the state will decide to tie the hands of a drowning man, imagining he actually intended to save himself. However, this caveat applies to absolutely any step taken by a legal business, so it is not necessary to repeat it every time.
5. A lack of working capital means that strategic investors must be sought. For this, it may be necessary to take some of the holding’s enterprises public through an IPO, which, in essence, would mean their exit from the holding while the current owner retains, say, a blocking package of shares. In return, refinancing, a change to more effective management, and involvement in new technological and sales chains could give these enterprises a development impulse, and for the current owner, mean a transition from losses to profits.
A scientist and talented manager, let’s call him SM, headed an experimental laboratory at the sunset of Soviet power, and after 1991, created a private firm to monetize its scientific developments. The partnership proved successful. A clientele emerged, placing commercial orders, and a steady flow of cash followed. The scientists’ earnings increased, and it became prestigious to enter the laboratory, including for the purpose of defending a dissertation. In the new economic conditions, SM strengthened his good name—his personal brand, as they say now.
The scientist was wise and understood that he would not live forever; in the mid-2000s, well into his sixties, he chose his best student (BS) as his successor, who owed the boss a great deal. They verbally agreed that after a few years, the teacher would hand over his scientific post and a share in the business to the student under certain conditions. Until that happened, the successor was appointed as SM’s deputy with signing authority.
Time passed. But the “grandfather” aged slowly. On the contrary, developing an enviable energy, he managed to marry yet again—this time a young (very young and beautiful) student, a PhD candidate from the provinces. SM intensively began arranging the life of his new family: he solved the housing issue on a large scale, started traveling to resorts with his young wife, took up downhill skiing in his old age, and meanwhile devoted less and less time to work. But business was going well: the deputy did not let him down, and money arrived in SM’s account regularly. Commercial orders grew, and the laboratory was strengthened by new staff brought in by BS. For his part, SM did not mistreat the future successor and, as he believed, paid him generously, very generously. Everything was fine; for the boss, a warm, almost “Boldino” autumn had begun.
The Climax
However, complex and unpleasant questions were accumulating in the deputy’s soul, such as “how long must I wait?”. He had the same thoughts as Pushkin’s Onegin regarding the uncle who was, as is well known, of the most honest rules. The best student continued to remain No. 2, although he was eager for the No. 1 position. BS could not ask the boss directly when he would take over. Yet he received indirect signals from SM that the agreements were still in force. The message was: wait, my friend, and happiness will be yours; meanwhile, our business is my personal business.
Not immediately, but BS realized it was time to stop worrying and start acting. He began with something simple: creating his own client base by poaching his boss’s clients. He registered his own company and nudged customers toward the idea that, for tax reasons, the contract for the work should formally be concluded with his company rather than the boss’s firm.
Over time, BS attempted to switch the largest companies to himself, whose executives knew SM personally. They signed the documents, extending the trust they had in the teacher’s name to the student. Perhaps everything would have slipped through here as well, but every now and then BS began to let slip in conversations with old clients that he, BS, was actually conducting all the business in the scientific company, while the “grandfather” was useless. He claimed the boss was pushed around by his young wife, understood little about the business, and it was long past time for him to retire. All of this did not escape the attentive ears of the interlocutors. Some of them informed SM in polite terms about the danger he had failed to notice, being preoccupied with an intensive family life.
The Resolution
Several years passed this way. SM’s wife successfully defended her dissertation and, through patronage, obtained a very good position, remaining as young and beautiful as ever. The same could not be said for her husband, who had crossed the threshold of his seventies. He remained impeccable in providing for the family’s material needs, but he could no longer maintain the greatly increased spiritual and other needs that such a beauty craved and undoubtedly deserved. However, some other men, far from being Doctors of Science, were quite capable of providing these other needs. The professor eventually reached this discouraging conclusion after connecting the corresponding dots. The family life cracked and quickly came to a logical end. The spouses separated, and in doing so, the wife managed to secure the enviable shared living space as a memory of her husband.
The teacher, left alone, was as if waking from a faint, and after a short period of reflection, returned to his laboratory—or, to put it in modern terms, to business. His business. It turned out that his professional skills had not vanished; his favorite work not only comforted him but again began to bring pleasure. But the euphoria of the return did not last long, only until SM conducted a detailed analysis of the orders and contractual relationships. First, suspicions arose that orders were disappearing somewhere, and then he looked at the documents, quickly remembered the warnings of his friends, and met with them. The truth revealed itself to him in all its harsh guise, and he finally understood, turning to the facts, that his deputy was brazenly and effectively openly stealing his business.
A conversation took place between the teacher and the student, if it could be called a conversation. After that, having calmed down and reasoning concretely as businessmen—but without the extremism sometimes characteristic of businessmen (they were, after all, intelligent people)—SM and BS realized they were in a difficult situation and began to think about how to live further. Initially, each saw emotional arguments for an immediate and harsh “divorce.” But upon more detailed analysis, factors emerged in favor of continuing cooperation, whatever that might entail.
Meanwhile, the rift between SM and BS became exposed, consequently alienating the employees. Strangely, the battle line was drawn not between the “old” and “new” staff brought in by the boss or his deputy, but along the moral positions of the parties, mainly on the question of who cheated whom. Furthermore, the confusing scheme of how orders were processed began to affect the quality of the work. Mistrust grew among clients toward the laboratory, its head, and the deputy: from the outside, it was impossible to tell who was right and who was wrong. Other negative factors appeared, which ultimately led to a weakening of the flow of orders and affected the financial situation of the employees.
With each passing day, the situation became worse…
Questions
How should the characters in the case have acted to avoid such a situation?
How can the current conflict be resolved? What would you recommend SM and BS undertake to reach an agreement?
Is it possible to preserve the profitable business created by SM in such a situation? How can this be done?
Constraints. The company owner is already over 70 years old. Even if he returns to the operational management of the business, he will not be able to engage in the company’s development for long. Additionally, it is important to note that the private research firm was created thanks to the owner’s authority and connections based on a state laboratory. One part of the business cannot exist without the other.
Answers
1. How should the characters in the case have acted?
As is easy to see, all the misunderstandings in the given case arose due to vague agreements. The first vague agreement: BS is forced to do all the work for a salary, based on a promise to inherit the business in an undefined future. The second vague agreement: the absence of a prenuptial agreement and, consequently, a conflict of expectations between SM and his spouse. The third vague agreement: the dubious legal status of the entire business, since officially it all remains a laboratory within a state research institute, and it is precisely this legal form that forces the first agreement to remain vague.
It is clear why SM preferred to stay under the wing of the state in the early nineties: it provides enormous savings at a stage when the business has not yet stood on its own feet. Here you have premises in the institute at the budget’s expense, plus a wealth of various informal connections in state structures of different levels, which can be used to pull off various schemes.
In the new post-Soviet economic reality, passing on the position of laboratory head as an inheritance is somewhat archaic. The timely establishment of a more adequate company structure could have provided the tools to prevent the conflict between SM and BS. For example, SM could have received a share in the business in addition to a salary and gradually increased it. The business itself could have been scaled more confidently instead of being confined to the size of a laboratory—but that, of course, is a matter of taste, ambition, and market conditions.
In general, the only task of a business owner that cannot be delegated to managers is controlling that management does not plunder the business. If the business owner does not perform this single task, then he alone is ultimately responsible for the business slipping through his fingers. To the extent that the state can be likened to a commercial company, the people are certainly responsible for the appalling quality of state management and the plundering of state property into the pockets of civil servants—but that is an off-topic in this case.
Thus, if regarding the business, the solution lies in removing it as completely as possible from state regulation, then regarding marriage, such things are not permitted by family codes. According to the code, a prenuptial agreement cannot provide for economic sanctions for extramarital affairs, which makes SM’s position in this deal more vulnerable. However, this is not so important. All agreements could have been concluded in advance. On the other hand, such romantic infatuations in old age are inevitably accompanied by a certain affectation, so it would be strange to expect a sober view from SM during the “mating season.”
By the way, if the company had been separated from the research institute in its time and represented an independent business, the appearance of SM’s spouse on the horizon would have inevitably led BS to demand clear guarantees of receiving the business; otherwise, it would have by default passed as inheritance to SM’s spouse, without all these dances with appointing a new lab head at the scientific council.
2. How can the current conflict be resolved?
I would advise formalizing the separation of roles. SM remains the lab head in the research institute until he decides to retire, and also holds the status of a scientific consultant with a good salary in BS’s company. BS retains his position as head of sector (or whatever it was) in the boss’s lab and remains the general director of his own company. As for what form to keep SM’s company in, I won’t venture a suggestion. Management could be transferred to BS. One of the companies could be liquidated. They could be merged into a holding. It’s not fundamental.
The point of the proposed solution is that each party has tools against the other, but no incentive to use them without extreme necessity. SM continues his scientific work, which should have a positive effect on his mood and zest for life, and the salary in BS’s company will allow him to continue living in style, as he is used to. At the same time, he no longer needs to ensure the business is not being plundered, since the business has already been transferred; only the rent remains. BS retains all clients and operational management, which means he has guarantees of maintaining control over the business and incentives to develop it in every way. He could fire SM, but then he would lose his position in the laboratory.
Переведи интерфейс сайта на английский, пусть сами вопросы задают
55%, 32 votes
32 votes55%
32 votes - 55% of all votes
Начни с общемировой проблематики, например, про космический мусор https://ancapchan.info/2018/12/16/1180/ *45%, 26 votes
26 votes45%
26 votes - 45% of all votes
Total Votes: 58
Voters: 54
28.12.2018 - 07.04.2020
* - added by visitor
Voting is closed
Мне поступило предложение начать вещать на англоязычную аудиторию. Это заманчиво, но трудоёмко, поэтому я пока не готова переводить всё подряд. Предлагается выбрать, с каких постов начать. Какие статьи были бы для иностранной аудитории наиболее понятны, актуальны и интересны?
Когда будете предлагать свои варианты, указывайте ссылки на соответствующие посты.
1. Imagine a situation: a local epidemic of some infection suddenly breaks out in a hospital, and the doctors forbid you from leaving the quarantine zone. But in doing so, they are restricting your right to freedom of movement. How would such situations be resolved under ancap?
2. Consider this situation: in the summer, a child is lying/sitting in a car, crying, possibly suffocating from lack of air and heat; the parents went somewhere on business and forgot about them, and a passerby sees this and wonders what to do. Can they or the police break into the car or smash a window without permission, if the car is private property (which is inviolable under ancap)?
3. Is it permissible to cause damage to a person’s property that clearly threatens other people? Examples: a car with the handbrake on starts rolling toward another car, a tower leans due to age and is about to collapse onto neighboring buildings, etc. The nuance: there is no contact with the owner of the threatening property, or there is no time for it (the car is rolling).
I decided to combine three similar anonymous questions into one to avoid writing three similar answers.
In the first case, it turns out that exercising your right to freedom of movement could lead to significant harm to third parties, so you are asked not to insist on its exercise until it can be ensured that the threat has passed. In the second and third cases, causing damage to private property prevents harm to a third party. In all cases, you are simply presented with the fact of your rights being violated.
Where do rights come from? Rights arise from the interactions of some members of society with others. Some people agree to tolerate certain behavior of other people because they believe that those people have a right to such behavior.
Doctors believe they have the right to restrict your movement; they only need to convince others of this, and for this, they can use various methods. The most obvious and correct one: when you are admitted to a hospital, you sign a contract that outlines various boundaries, including force majeure situations like quarantine. Again, to ensure quarantine, doctors usually bring in specialists specifically for enforcement. Who will pay for this? As already mentioned in the post about epidemics, the most obvious interested party is insurance companies. They are the ones interested in ensuring the epidemic is prevented and the volume of insurance claim payouts is minimized; for this purpose, they can pay both those who enforce the quarantine and those caught in the quarantine—as compensation for the inconvenience. Or the insurance company may decide that the danger is small and will not introduce restrictions—those are its risks.
A passerby believes they have the right to encroach upon your private property to save a person; they only need to convince others of this. This is quite simple: they only need to demonstrate the rescued child to other passersby, and they will join the rescuer’s sincere indignation toward the jerk who left the child in the car, and perhaps even help in searching for the car’s owner.
General principles emerge from the generalization of private practice. They work well for typical situations and allow for the saving of mental effort. When two conflicting general principles collide in one head, a mental effort must still be made. It’s nothing terrible; the ability to think is always useful.
This was probably the most anticipated video of the year: Ekaterina Schulmann had promised to give Mikhail Svetov an interview back when I was just starting my channel; six months passed, and the recording finally came out.
The stature of the participants in the conversation is practically equal. Both are popular video bloggers (Mikhail has a couple of tens of thousands more subscribers on YouTube, Ekaterina has a more promoted Facebook). Both are popular public lecturers (Mikhail has visited more provincial towns, Ekaterina speaks more often and is more embraced by the media). Behind Ekaterina are scholarly articles, co-authorship of a textbook, and numerous press publications. Behind Mikhail are two sizable rallies. Ekaterina holds a teaching position and membership in the Human Rights Council. Mikhail holds a leadership position in a rapidly gaining popularity political party and has a ten-day stint in detention. Both are political scientists by education, which means, theoretically, they should, if not speak the same language, at least understand each other well. Finally, both have a loyal army of supporters.
It is clear that the conversation was not a direct clash, otherwise I simply wouldn’t have known what to do with myself or who to root for. On one hand, Mikhail is closer to me ideologically, although we have many disagreements. On the other, Ekaterina is my role model, and it is terribly difficult for me to analyze her words impartially. But these were not debates, but a respectful communication between political allies about various subtleties and nuances, so I could root for Ekaterina without a guilty conscience.
Mikhail prepared magnificently for the conversation and also demonstrated an ability to think at least as fast as Ekaterina speaks, so he managed to interject with instant remarks during the pauses in her speech (anyone who has listened to Schulmann can imagine how tightly packed the words are in her phrases).
The most interesting part began in the last fifteen minutes of the conversation, when they moved from a dialogue about interesting topics to a targeted discussion of disagreements. Here, Mikhail surprised me again. He managed to pierce the armor of his interlocutor’s unwavering optimism by painting a not-entirely-fantastical scenario of clashes between Caucasian ethnic groups in the middle of the RF capital. Then Ekaterina quite skillfully regained her lost advantage during the discussion of Svetov’s signature topic—lustration—which she considers equally unlikely and unhelpful, while seeing more realistic alternatives to it.
After the conversation, Mikhail summarized the interaction on his Twitter roughly like this: Ekaterina is very useful in her place, specifically because the near-Kremlin public listens to her. Moreover, it’s not that she can facilitate a soft liberalization from above, but that she lulls the authorities with her sweet speeches, and when the thunder of revolution strikes, it will come as a complete surprise to the regime. This moment was also quite unexpected for me—exactly when Mikhail turned from a singer of libertarianism into a fervent revolutionary. He really spent the entire conversation unsuccessfully trying to get Ekaterina to agree with the thesis that Russia is about to explode and there will be a bloodbath; he did not succeed (with the Chechen caveat), and as a result, concluded that fine, let the authorities listen to Schulmann, but you, my little friends, listen to Svetov, he knows how it should be.
The “pump and dump” scheme exploits the bounded rationality of economic agents and, of course, information asymmetry—in short, those very “magic bullets” that government regulators love to cling to when they need a justification for regulations.
As long as such a scheme is practiced by private individuals on exchanges not affiliated with them, this is, firstly, behavior that is difficult to distinguish from honest trading, and, secondly, it does not guarantee profit, but carries risks just like any other trading strategy.
If an exchange is caught in such activities, it leads to a loss of volume—serious players prefer more serious platforms. For example, Bitfinex, a fairly old exchange by cryptocurrency standards, was suspected of manipulating the Bitcoin price by using the Tether stablecoin it issues, which may have had incomplete backing. As a result, the exchange that was once first or second in the world by volume has now slipped toward the end of the top ten, and a couple of new popular coins have appeared in the stablecoin market, which first and foremost underwent a full audit for one-hundred-percent dollar backing. Bitmain tried to manipulate the Bitcoin Cash price and almost went bankrupt because of it. Obviously, many are haunted by the laurels of George Soros, who successfully played against the British pound, but this is a bad topic for a long-term game.
The institution of reputation rules better than any regulators.
