Birth rate as a reflection of the tragedy of the commons

Bitarch

Statists often say that the state helps solve the problems of the tragedy of the commons. In reality, of course, it only creates them. The most large-scale of these, capable of leading to the collapse of civilization, is the sharp decline in the birth rate. Indeed, why should a woman spend many sleepless nights changing a baby’s diapers, when it’s far more interesting to go to a club to party with friends and post photos of fashionable clothes on Insta! And what will happen in old age? Absolutely irrelevant — the beloved state will not leave her without a decent pension, and if she votes correctly, it will even provide a free caregiver.

This is a clear tragedy of the commons. For an individual woman, from a resource perspective, it is more profitable not to give birth at all (she will still receive a guaranteed pension in old age, but will not spend resources on raising children). If all the residents of a country do this, tax revenues will fall along with the population of that specific country, and the state will be forced to increase its plunder. Taxes are already at historical highs; accordingly, any further increase will guaranteedly lead to a decline in the entire economy, the departure of business both from the country and “into the shadows,” and ultimately — the collapse of the state.

For my part, I will note that the state solves this tragedy of the commons simply: by paying child benefits. In this way, the birth rate increases among those for whom the amount of the benefit matters. So, from the state’s perspective, nothing terrible is happening: childless wealthy citizens pay for the poor and fertile; justice triumphs. The state is an entire conglomerate of special interest groups, and any challenge coming from the outside world, or even just a fabricated one, can be used as a pretext to increase the size of the state: whether it be high birth rates, low birth rates, high immigration, low immigration, warming, or cooling…

Why is counter-economics much more effective than insurgency and armed struggle?

Bitarch Answers

For most people, a radical change in the socio-political formation of society is usually associated with a revolution, which occurs through armed struggle and the overthrow of the ruling regime. However, people miss the main point—upon coming to power, revolutionaries carry out mass purges of their former opponents, creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred in society (for example, the Red Terror during the Civil War, and later the Stalinist repressions). Often, the revolutionary government itself is overthrown by the opponents of the revolution, and its achievements are destroyed (for example, the Jacobins during the French Revolution). All this happens against a backdrop of famine, economic collapse, and technological degradation. It should also not be forgotten that people acting from the underground do not shy away from using violence. We want to build a libertarian society, that is, a society based on voluntary relations. But here is the problem—people accustomed to violence and a violent (military) hierarchy will most likely use familiar methods against dissenters even after their victory. Simply because they do not know any other way!

There is another, more effective and humane way to reach a free society (voluntarism, ancap)—counter-economics. This is exactly what I advocate for, and I hope for the gradual non-violent construction of such a society.

First and foremost, of course, the ideas themselves must be conveyed to people (taxes are theft; the state is a stationary bandit; it is possible to do without it by replacing its institutions with competing public organizations or extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions with voluntary membership). The state exists in people’s heads as a model of behavior, so it must first be eradicated from there. The more promotion channels we master, the better—leaflets, graffiti, social media groups, online and offline advertising, lectures, videos, books, etc.

I want to convey the main idea to people—the state itself creates no value and exists exclusively through taxation. Even income from the sale of oil and gas is, in reality, tax payments. The fewer taxes the state receives, the weaker it becomes and, accordingly, the fewer resources it can spend on suppressing protests and repressing its opponents.

How can an ordinary person enter the fight against the Leviathan without fearing repressions on its part? The answer is simple—minimizing tax payments and maximizing the extraction of state resources through social services (using any opportunity to obtain benefits, tax refunds, social housing, food stamps, discounted travel passes, etc.).

If possible, one should agree with the employer to have the entire salary paid “under the table.” An alternative option is to switch from an employment contract to a service contract (meaning you become a separate contractor for the employer company and save significantly on taxes and, surprisingly, this is one hundred percent legal). It is also worth learning how to use cryptocurrencies, buying food and things at local markets and from private sellers (rather than in a store where you pay VAT), and using the services of private providers and craftsmen (who do not provide cash receipts).

The state already senses something is wrong, and not long ago it declared a hunt for the self-employed. Well, let it run: the costs of collecting such taxes will far exceed the volume of funds collected.

Agree, it is an extremely optimistic picture: the Leviathan has perished, and man remains

Hi, I wanted to find out how quality control will work (so as not to eat poisoned food, for example) under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

At the moment, in the field of product quality control, as in everywhere where the state controls something, there is more of a security theater than actual protection. Seeing a certificate from yet another “blah-blah-oversight” body stating that a product has passed inspection, the end consumer never knows: perhaps the product really was thoroughly checked, perhaps it was checked half-heartedly, perhaps the certificate was forged, or perhaps it was bought. The reputation of the certifying body may be as low as possible, but the manufacturer will still be obliged to crawl to them and obtain the paperwork if they operate legally. Thus, compulsory state quality certification always degenerates quite quickly into a fiction, which, however, costs some money, and the consumer will pay that money in full.

In the absence of compulsory quality control, the customer initially has no trust in the product manufacturer. What does this lead to? The most elementary quality check, which instantly arises in any bazaar: the consumer tastes the product before buying. This is a phenomenon of a relatively poor market, where no more expensive methods of control are affordable for either the seller or the buyer.

As prosperity grows and more complex goods appear, demand arises for more sophisticated control, such as chemical analysis and other instrumental research. What does “demand arises” mean? People start wondering to what extent the numbers and words on the packaging correspond to the truth. Next, for example, some video blogger (while this is more often television for now, but we are considering pure, unadulterated ancap) conducts a study and sees an increase in audience from its demonstration. Then a store may refer to this study, stating that their product is perfectly fine. In addition, consumer associations and producer associations may appear (it is also not in their interest for someone to slap “sausage” labels on crap and have people think that any sausage is crap), as well as the insurance companies constantly mentioned by ancap theorists—in short, many people will be willing to earn money by satisfying the market demand for product quality verification.

How to explain to a statist-hoplophobe that such a funny thing as state regulation of crypto is not only pointless, but will not make the world even slightly safer?

анонимный вопрос

I don’t quite understand why we are talking about a statist-hoplophobe, and not a statist-guitarist, for example, if the subject is the control over cryptocurrency circulation.

By design, most cryptocurrencies do not require the participation of a trusted intermediary, let alone one necessarily authorized by the state. So, avoiding state regulation of cryptocurrency circulation is very simple, and banning it is pointless. The only thing the state can regulate more or less effectively is the conversion of crypto into fiat, meanwhile, money earned in cryptocurrency still has to be spent primarily in national fiat currencies.

So, a state wishing to regulate cryptocurrency circulation can act like the United States, which pressures crypto exchanges on its territory and demands they snitch on their clients, while crypto exchanges in the rest of the world have simply told these pushovers to get lost and require confirmation during registration that you are not a US citizen. Thus, it is not so easy for a US citizen to perform uncontrolled exchanges of crypto for fiat in significant amounts.

That is why unfortunate US citizens continue to buy drugs with good old cash dollars, and use cryptocurrency far less widely than they could. What does the need to buy drugs with physical cash mean? The need for personal contact with a pusher, additional security measures for everyone involved in the distribution chain—since they are easy targets for robbery—in short, blood, filth, and endless street clashes. Does the world become safer because crack-dealing gangs are dividing territory?

Compare this situation with peaceful and safe Russia, where the only danger for a “zakladchik” [dead-drop courier] and a drug user is the cops, while the level of street violence related to substance circulation has decreased considerably with the arrival of cryptocurrencies in this industry. Where would violence come from if the producer, the buyer, and the courier are physically separated and do not know each other?

It is completely irrelevant how you personally feel about psychoactive substances, but the fact that this market has switched to crypto has made the lives of ordinary, uninvolved people safer, whereas where the market has not switched, everything has remained as it was. Even this single consideration should be enough to convince a person who is truly concerned about their safety that crypto should not be regulated.

Now, if he—as is common among statists—is convinced that the state should regulate absolutely everything that can be somewhat shoehorned into the market of anything even slightly dangerous, because “control is needed, how can we do without control,” then conversation is useless; only personal experience will change his mind.

And if only the guy had a short-barreled—excuse me—a bitcoin…

When the marketlet decided

Residents of the “Pravy Bereg” residential complex in Khimki are outraged that the developer deliberately filled the courtyard with old cars to occupy all the parking spaces. As an alternative, people are forced to buy spaces in the underground parking lot, with prices starting from 800K. How can this problem be solved under ancap?

Dmitry

What you described is a variation of the tragedy of the commons, where insufficiently clear property rights lead to a situation where it is profitable for everyone to exploit a shared resource as intensively as possible, leading to its rapid degradation.

As can be easily guessed from the introduction, the simplest remedy lies precisely in a clearer definition of property rights, for which ancap is quite well-suited. Let’s look at the details.

What do we have now? The developer obtains a permit from the municipality to build a house, reaches some agreement with the previous land owners, builds the house, sells apartments and underground parking, but has no right to take ownership of the land; the land under and around the house is the collective property of the residents because that is how the state decreed it.

How can residents who wish to park near the house and do not want to buy expensive underground parking spaces from the developer defend this right in the current situation? They would have to organize a homeowners association (HOA) and grant it the right to establish paid parking near the house, which must be voted for at a general meeting by a certain number of apartment owners holding at least half of the total residential square footage. After that, it would be costly for the developer to occupy the paid courtyard parking with his cars, and he would consider other ways to monetize his unsold property, for example, by renting out the spaces instead of selling them.

The scheme is not bad, but it is organizationally very complex, and as a result of its application, car owners will be forced to shell out for parking rent, which is clearly not what they would want, as it is much more pleasant to use a resource for free.

Under ancap, there is no external regulator requiring that the land under the house belong to the homeowners, and the developer will be interested in keeping it for himself, renting out both the apartments and all types of parking spaces to the residents. Or, as an option, selling the apartments and renting out the parking spaces. Or selling the apartments and the underground parking while renting out the above-ground ones. Or not creating one of the types of parking at all.

Fans of the HOA form would be able to either buy the land and build a house together by pooling funds, or buy apartments from the developer along with the land, should he be so inclined.

One way or another, in the absence of an external regulator acting as a force majeure, people will not have to perform strange and unnatural roundabout maneuvers when their interests can be stated and defended directly.

Maxim Katz’s nightmare…

Если вы пришли сюда по ссылке из других соцсетей, напоминаю, что на мой канал можно подписаться в телеграме, а для обсуждения деятельности канала там же, в телеграме, создан уютный чатик.

Buying up looted goods

If I illegally appropriate someone else’s property, it is aggressive violence and a violation of the NAP. But if I buy someone else’s property that was illegally appropriated by another person, will that be considered a violation of the NAP? And what if I place an order for certain goods with a person who deals in such things?

Emmanuel Goldstein

This question echoes the question of whether ordering a hit violates the NAP. And similarly, the answer to it is a definitive “no.” It is completely irrelevant whether someone created a positive material motivation for the thief, robber, or killer — the decision to commit aggressive violence was made by the perpetrator themselves. However, if someone threatened the executor with certain sanctions in case the theft/robbery/murder was not carried out, then, of course, both the client and the executor bear responsibility: one for the threat of action, and the second for the actions they took to avoid the threat.

Does this mean that a fence acquires legal rights to what they buy? No, they do not. That is precisely why they buy things at a massive discount: they obtain the item only in factual possession and factor into the price the risk that the previous owner will be found, to whom the item must be returned without any compensation.

So, if a service station owner buys a stolen car and dismantles it for parts to make it harder to find, will nothing happen to him? Something will. He will still be obligated to return the car to the owner, but due to the technical impossibility of doing so, he will have to negotiate compensation, which will clearly include a significant premium over the market price of the car.

Finally, I want to note that property claims are not always linked to a violation of the non-aggression principle. If you become a victim of fraud, the NAP has not been violated, but you still have a claim, and a court, given the evidence, has every reason to side with you. In effect, a fence, in relation to the legal owner, is precisely a fraudster: they deceive you by claiming they were unaware of the item’s status, and that they just desperately needed parts, so why not buy a practically new car for scrap.

So, while there is no violation of the NAP in this activity, it does not mean impunity.

Poll about post frequency

Сколько постов в сутки вам кажутся оптимальными для этого канала?
Results

If the term “capitalism” was invented by the left, isn’t the attempt to rehabilitate this word and use it in a positive context playing by their rules?

(as far as I know, this term was first used by Louis Blanc, a French socialist, in a negative context, contrasting it with socialism)

анонимный вопрос

The ways of memes are unfathomable… The opposition of “capitalism-socialism” seemingly reflects quite accurately the opposition of big money to big battalions, which is why it took hold.

I personally try not to use the word capitalism in its pure form, because if you add the tomato juice of anarchism to this vodka, it becomes much tastier, and the name of the cocktail sounds less vulgar. But it just so happens that phrases like market anarchism or free-market anarchism turn out to be longer and clumsier than a simple ancap.

In principle, this is not the only term that started as a derogatory label and later acquired a certain academicism and moral neutrality (for example, minarchism), and conversely, many words started as something bright and beautiful, but are now used as nothing other than insults, and decent people try to distance themselves from such associations (I am referring primarily to liberals, who in the US are currently synonymous with the word socialists, and in Russia synonymous with the word social Darwinists).

The best thing one can do, wishing to treat language as carefully as possible, is to use fewer value judgments. For instance, Svetov is currently actively trying to revive the half-forgotten word nomenklatura, which for me, a representative of the first non-Soviet generation, is a term more from warehouse accounting. Why spoil words? There is the wonderful word official, which is far clearer than some nomenklatura, and means exactly the same thing. Fine, this is already nitpicking and a matter of taste; I am giving it simply as an illustration of the fact that you cannot please everyone.

So overall, I agree with your thesis that established connotations must be taken into account, but it is not absolutely necessary to follow them in everything, or even more so to break them on principle solely on the grounds that opponents once invented this rule.

There is a certain reckless cynicism in portraying the monster that others see in you…

Why does the state constantly grow? Why is minarchism unstable?

Answered by Bitarch

History shows that over a long period of time, the “size of the state” (the volume of resources it controls and the degree of influence over the lives of its subjects) constantly grows. This applies to all forms of government—liberal democracies, republics with census-based democracy, ideocracies, theocracies, and even monarchies. Some states were initially created on the idea of minarchism (“limited government”), such as the USA, where the founding fathers understood the possibility of the state’s growth and tried to prescribe mechanisms to restrain this process in the constitution. In all cases, this did not work, and even the “smallest” governments grew to gigantic proportions.

So why does this always happen? There are many versions, but the most plausible seems to be the idea expressed by Pavel Usanov in his recent lecture “Spontaneous Orders as an Alternative to the State”. Growth occurs because every official is interested in redistributing rent (resources taken from the population through taxes) in their own favor. If they do not do it themselves, one of their colleagues will. A constant temptation arises to engage in populism and invent new functions for state intervention in areas related to the interest group that put this specific official in power. For example, officials from a state social insurance agency are interested in INCREASING the number of unemployed and poor people, as they can then “secure” more funding for themselves and, accordingly, increase their salaries, hire their friends, or award themselves bonuses.

Если вы пришли сюда по ссылке из других соцсетей, напоминаю, что на мой канал можно подписаться в телеграме, а для обсуждения деятельности канала там же, в телеграме, создан уютный чатик.

Oh, what noble intentions they had!

What objective disadvantages does capitalism have?

анонимный вопрос

I don’t remember if I have provided definitions before, but they are indispensable.

Capitalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are commodity-money relations.

And, while I’m at it, I’ll define a few more imaginary entities.

Feudalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are personal mutual obligations.

Despotism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are relations of direct violent coercion.

And, of course, we can’t forget: communism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are relations of gifting.

Accordingly, criticisms of one system or another are based on its essence. Capitalism is criticized because under it everything is for sale and everything can be bought. Feudalism — because loyalty is more important than competence. Despotism — for terribly low labor productivity and enormous management costs. Communism — for the free-rider problem.

Therefore, to eliminate the objective shortcomings of capitalism, where it is more convenient for people, they easily borrow elements of other human formations. Do we have a closed economy and an unfriendly external environment? We borrow elements of feudalism. My property has been damaged, the responsible party has been identified, but they refuse to pay? Despotism is just what the doctor ordered. Do we have a family? Welcome to communism.

The main thing to remember is that all these social formations are simply conceptual constructs, while in reality there are many unique individual contacts between people, in each of which every participant pursues their own goals and uses their own means.

Uncle Scrooge is not only Scrooge, but also “uncle”