If, for example, people were given the opportunity to take revenge for one night, as in “The Purge” — it would be a very useful practice for reducing crime. How does ancap view this?

анонимный вопрос

As a reminder, the purge night is a concept from the movie of the same name, according to which the state designates one night a year during which it refuses to prevent any violence of citizens toward one another, but at the same time does not remove itself from the scene, and even reserves the right to apply completely arbitrary violence against citizens on this night, for which no claims are accepted.  

Let’s agree right away that the non-violent implementation of the specified institute under ancap in this particular form is impossible, simply due to the absence of a state. So, I would rather reason through how I would act to implement a purge night under ancap.

  1. The “Founding Fathers” corporation buys a large plot of cheap land somewhere in Nevada.
  2. A Purge-city amusement park is built there.
  3. Throughout the year, the amusement park makes money by renting out sets for film shoots, paintball, airsoft, hardball, and other innocent shootouts.
  4. One night a year, volunteers from all over the world gather in the city to shoot at each other with live weapons. Before purchasing a tour, they sign a detailed contract, including a waiver of claims against the company in the event of death or injury at the hands of other players, as well as a waiver of claims against other players for any of their actions that do not violate the rules of the “Purge Night” attraction. The contract also provides for the company’s obligation to pay participants an agreed-upon bonus for the fact of survival, and a bonus of the same amount for each frag obtained. In addition, of course, the company undertakes not to kill players themselves, including by entering into any special agreements with any players. The rules also specify the permitted classes of weapons, as well as a number of other nuances that I will omit here for brevity.
  5. The costs of conducting the purge night are perfectly offset by income from advertising placed on the sets, from the sale of broadcasting rights, from merchandise, and so on.

What is the circle of primary potential participants?

  1. Adrenaline junkies. Meet John Watson, a former paramedic and three-time Purge Night individual champion!
  2. Teams from poor warring states. Meet Team Congo, a two-time Purge Night team champion!
  3. Betting enthusiasts. Meet David Loser, who is participating in the Purge Night because he lost a bet to Carol Winner, having predicted that the bitcoin rate would fall to ten ounces of gold in August!
  4. Duelists. Meet Najib Gasan-ogly and Samvel Budumyan, who decided to fight in a duel on Purge Night and defend the honor of their people!
  5. And various random party-goers who decided that this is cool. Meet Fyodor Konyukhov, who decided to cross Purge-city on Purge Night without a weapon from west to east and meet the sunrise at the edge of the desert with a cup of Nescafe!

What social consequences will such a business lead to? None in particular. What social consequences does the existence of the no-rules fighting industry in today’s reality lead to? Well, there are fights, and that’s fine. Some people go, pay money; others fight, get money; others make fun movies about it. It’s the same in our case.

Will the level of violent crime in the world decrease in the intervals between purge nights? Unlikely; most likely, it will continue to gradually decrease as people’s wealth grows. Will my business take off? Maybe it will. Will I remain a monopolist in this market? Only if it is very narrow; otherwise, competitors will likely join in and take some market share.

The market will decide!

That’s not how it’ll be, not at all!

Is abortion justifiable from a libertarian perspective?

анонимный вопрос

The topic of abortion is the subject of heated debates that flare up from time to time within the libertarian community, and I get the feeling that the cause is not the acuity of the problem, but rather that it is a convenient scholastic exercise allowing one to examine the phenomenon from various positions while continuing to be considered a libertarian.

Arguments for abortion

  1. According to the principle of self-ownership, a woman has property rights over her own body, including the embryo that appeared there, regardless of whether this happened by her will or against it. The embryo is thus viewed as a part of the woman’s body, possessing no legal personality. At the same time, however, the interests of the father or other parties may be taken into account: if they provided the woman with resources from the moment of conception under the promise to carry the child to term, and she has an abortion, they are then entitled to require her to pay the agreed-upon liquidated damages.
  2. Even if the embryo is considered a person and its legal personality is recognized, its presence inside the womb is lawful only with the mother’s permission; otherwise, it must leave the organism upon first request, or else the woman has the right to remove it from the organism by force. As is easy to see, the discussion here is raised to a more abstract level, where the relationship between the woman and the fetus in her womb is interpreted as a relationship between two independent subjects, which may be considered a certain kind of casuistry.

Arguments against abortion

  1. If abortion is prohibited in a community with a free exit, the rules of which the woman accepts by virtue of her presence in it at the moment of conception, then the act of abortion will be a breach of contract on her part, and therefore the agreed-upon sanctions should be applied to her. The legal personality of the embryo is entirely irrelevant in this case. This position, however, is vulnerable to the woman’s claim of her right to freely leave the community and only then have an abortion, and therefore it is mentioned infrequently in disputes.
  2. By the fact of conception, parents commit violence against the child, because, firstly, they change its state from non-existence to existence without its consent, and secondly, they forcibly cast it into a state of helplessness. This entails an obligation for them to compensate the child for the harm caused, that is, to ensure an unobstructed birth, and then to provide resources until the child acquires the ability to exist independently. This position is vulnerable to the thesis that if changing the state from non-existence to existence is violence, then the reverse change of state back to non-existence would be quite adequate compensation; also, if conception is violence, then it is the duty of every responsible citizen to prevent such violence, meaning the very fact of unprotected sex should already be considered an attempt at conception and punished with the full severity of the law for violators of the non-aggression principle. It is not hard to guess that a community consistently practicing this approach would survive for exactly one generation.

An attempt to reconcile the parties

If you consider abortions to be aggressive violence against prenatal children, then you presumably would want children not just to be born, but also to grow up in love and affection. But it is easy to guess that if a woman wanted to have an abortion, and she was stopped only by the fear of your harsh sanctions, it is not a given that she will feel warm emotions toward the child, not to mention the temptation to use various ways to starve the fetus or kill the infant in such a way that the causes of death seem natural. Therefore, it would be very ethical on your part to offer a desperate woman, ready to get rid of an unborn child, financial assistance and your guarantee to take the child into guardianship immediately after birth in exchange for a firm promise to carry the child to term and give birth to it. In this way, you will not only prevent what you consider a crime, but also ensure the child a truly loving and responsible family.

If, however, you prefer to remain in the position that your business is to demand punishment for crimes rather than prevent them, then be prepared for the fact that quite a few will consider this bad faith behavior; for if you know that a helpless prenatal child died, although a shred of your effort could have saved it, then according to the principle of estoppel, you cannot demand punishment for another person who also allowed this death, although a shred of their effort could have saved the child.

You didn’t take the child into guardianship, how could you!

Lustration

Thanks to the activities of Mikhail Svetov, a topic as exotic for libertarian discourse as lustration has become an important component of the public rhetoric of Russian libertarians. Indeed, there is no other libertarian party in the world that pays such attention to this issue. Some advocate for the liberalization of the psychoactive substances market, others for the liberalization of the weapons market, some for tax cuts, and others are even forced to speak in favor of abolishing price regulations on essential goods, but no one demands the mass removal from power of officials of the current regime simply by virtue of holding their current position.

Arguments for lustration

  1. Lustrations are the gentlest way to remove those who have demonstrated their professional incompetence from power. If they were to be tried instead, it would be long, expensive, dirty, and crude; it would be better for them to accept that they will simply be pushed out of the area where they are incompetent and be given the freedom to engage in anything else.
  2. Without lustrations, nothing will work at all. Any number of wonderful laws can be passed, but functionaries of the former regime will sabotage the reforms, distort and discredit them, and this will lead to the liberal government, failing to achieve quick successes, losing public support. Therefore, lustrations are important specifically as a tool for rapid cleansing, in contrast to numerous individual proceedings, so as not to lose the pace of transformation.
  3. Post-Soviet countries that carried out decisive lustrations are now in a much better position than those that did not, and former Soviet leaders there have not returned to power.
  4. Lustrations are populism, and populism means votes in elections; there is no need to fear populism—on the contrary, one should fear remaining marginal.
  5. (point added based on the results of the discussion in the comments) A law on lustrations has a psychotherapeutic effect. Long existence under conditions of a de facto estate society requires compensation, and the restriction of rights of representatives of the old upper estate, thereby transferring them to a conditionally lower one, is a good bloodless recipe that allows people to feel like full-fledged citizens.

Arguments against lustrations

  1. Lustrations are a diversion of forces toward a negative agenda. Instead of implementing the new, a significant portion of those coming to power will be occupied with settling old scores; moreover, any delays in reforms will inevitably be justified by claiming that not enough people are being lustrated and that enemies are conducting sabotage.
  2. It is easy to say now that lustration is a gentle tool, but it is difficult to say how gentle it will prove to be in practice. Formally, a person is deprived of their position, the right to hold government office, and the right to run for representative bodies of power. In fact, they will also receive the stigma of being “lustrated,” and it is impossible to say in advance what other restrictions of rights this stigma will lead to. The freezing of accounts, for example. “Here is your quota of 300 dollars a month for withdrawal, and full unblocking only after the results of a commission’s work to ensure that there are no funds on the account obtained from criminal activity under the previous regime.” Even if such measures are not in Mikhail’s current rhetoric, who can guarantee that they won’t be proposed, for example, by employees of the Anti-Corruption Foundation?
  3. A law on lustrations hits broadly. If a new government is formed as a result of a split among elites, the members of the new government will be interested in formulating the clauses of the law so that they themselves do not fall under it. It will turn out as it did in Ukraine, where many functionaries of the previous regime did not fall under the law, while the scapegoats suffered.
  4. Mass restrictions of citizens’ rights will inevitably create a large group of the population that harbors resentment toward the reformers. The more mass the lustrations are (and Mikhail has not set clear criteria for the end of the process, and intends to lustrate until he is stopped), the larger the group of victims will be. Since the active voting right of the lustrated will remain, candidates promising to roll back reforms and return the “good old days” will receive broad support in the next elections.
  5. Lustrations were popular mainly in countries with a developed national consciousness against the backdrop of Soviet occupation. In the former metropole, this idea will meet fierce resistance because the current government is perceived as one’s own, not as colonial.

Alternative to lustrations

Instead of announcing the mass restriction of rights for officials, one could promote the mass reduction of positions. There is no point in lustrating Medinsky, Kolobkov, or Oreshkin; there is point in abolishing the ministries of culture, sports, and economic development. There is no point in lustrating Zolotov; there is point in abolishing the Rosgvardia. There is no point in purging the gubernatorial corps; there is point in taking away the powers of the regions in favor of municipalities. As for the positions that are decided to be kept, it is not so important to conduct personnel purges manually; it is much more important to improve democratic institutions so that unqualified functionaries simply leave peacefully in the next elections.

If after the mass privatization of state property it turns out that a considerable portion of it was bought up by former government officials? Well, that’s wonderful! If the money was obtained as a result of aggressive violence and specific victims are found, then this can be gradually investigated, a lawsuit filed, and compensation recovered, and whatever remains will belong to them indisputably. If no one makes claims, it means this money was obtained by them from official salaries, bribes for bypassing state regulations, and other relatively harmless ways, so let this money now work in the free market.

It seems to me that libertarians have far more relevant topics in their agenda, for example, the reduction of the state, and a far more effective tool than the mass restriction of people’s rights—for example, the market. So, discussing lustrations purely in an academic vein as one of the possible tools of social transformation—why not. But to obsess over this meme oneself means turning from a sect of witnesses of the market into a sect of witnesses of lustrations, and from there, the label of “dem-shiza” [democratic craziness] is not far off.

What to do about epidemics?

Currently, the state can (forcibly, of course) isolate a region where an outbreak of a particular infectious disease has occurred, while also taking preventive measures such as the culling of livestock. Thanks to this, it is possible to significantly hinder the spread of infection and avoid a large number of human casualties. Could the market possibly handle something like this?

анонимный вопрос

The concept of ancap is often criticized for proposing a multitude of private borders instead of a single intra-state space, which any landowner has the right to close at any moment. This criticism is countered by the fact that such a closure is, first of all, not profitable for anyone, and second, if one person goes crazy and closes their territory to passage, there will always be another who will only benefit from the traffic being diverted through them.

And now we have the opposite situation: many private borders, and those wishing to cross them, moving from the epicenter of an epidemic, pose a clear and unambiguous danger to the owner of the transit territory. Naturally, the owners will be interested in setting up checkpoints. Who will come to their aid? Of course, insurance companies, for whom every epidemic is a heavy financial burden, and if it can be localized in some way, they will make every effort to do so. Finally, meat producers from uninfected territories are, on one hand, interested in ensuring that this epidemic does not affect their herds, and on the other, will be glad if their competitors’ livestock numbers decrease, as this will increase their profits. Therefore, they will also willingly finance quarantine measures, veterinary control, and the slaughter of infected livestock. To ensure that neighbors do not stubbornly resist or cheat, they will likely even agree to establish some kind of mutual aid fund to compensate them for part of the losses from the sanitary slaughter.

So the market, unlike soulless salaried bureaucrats, will react to such cataclysms far more vividly and diligently.

How can the continuity of pension payments be ensured during the transition to a libertarian society?

Now, as you probably know, the majority of the pension budget consists of transfers from the federal budget, where the working generation supports pensioners through taxes. The PFR (Pension Fund of Russia) exists purely on paper; without transfer payments from the budget, it would be exhausted instantly; accordingly, its privatization would achieve nothing. In a stable libertarian society, it is clear how the pension system will work (private insurance, assistance from children, charity, capital income, etc.), but what should be done during the transition period before this has been created?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

The state, by forcibly seizing money from people, does so under the pretext that it assumes certain obligations in return. In the case of pension contributions, this is the obligation of a lifelong annuity, starting from an age determined by the state. After the liquidation of the state, the fate of its obligations may vary depending on exactly how the state was liquidated.

Minarchism

In the event of a minarchist government coming to power, everything is relatively simple and predictable (and for me personally, this is almost the only argument in favor of minarchism as a transition period to ancap). For example, the transition period is described in the LPR (Libertarian Party of Russia) program, and the proposed mechanism generally satisfies me completely:

At the initial stage of reforms, all obligations of the state to pensioners and persons who have begun to pay pension insurance contributions will be fulfilled through the creation of a special State Pension Restitution Fund, to which current profits from the privatization of state enterprises and corporations will be directed. All those who made mandatory pension insurance contributions will have them returned as funds from the sale of state property (including the property of the Pension Fund of Russia itself) enter the State Pension Restitution Fund. 

Program of the Libertarian Party of Russia

Upon completion of the restitution, the LPR program envisions the liquidation of the fund and the transfer of the remnants to charity, which is an unfair and corruption-prone measure; therefore, it would be much simpler and more logical upon the liquidation of the fund to distribute the remainder equally to all citizens as a one-time payment.

Anarcho-capitalism

But no minarchism may happen at all. The moral and financial bankruptcy of the state may lead to its liquidation occurring not from the top, with payment on state obligations, but from below, from the side — yes, from everywhere people can reach, without the formation of any successor structures. In other words, state property will be partially bought up by private individuals and partially stolen by state employees at the pre-bankruptcy stage, and the least liquid assets will be scavenged by anyone and everyone once the state is actually liquidated.

How much will pensioners be able to grab for themselves at the pre-bankruptcy stage? Perhaps some land, since as difficulties with paying pensions grow, the demand for land for personal farming will increase, and the distribution of land to pensioners and “persons of pre-retirement age” during this period is quite likely.

How much will pensioners be able to grab at the stage of scavenging the remains? Working budget employees will scavenge the most because they are closer. Some of these working budget employees will be pensioners; they will get something. Non-working people will get something if they hustle, using old connections and similar tools.

Bleak? I’m sorry, I have no other ancap for you in Russia. But there is also good news. If, as the state gradually goes bankrupt, people manage to prevent a collapse into socialism, then by the time of the final liquidation of this parasite, society will already be ready: it will have developed most of the necessary institutions for ancap, primarily mechanisms for private protection and the establishment of property rights, and then the transition period will pass relatively painlessly.

Now, if the state is socialist at the moment of liquidation, then, I’m sorry, instead of ancap, you get Somalia. This is exactly the process we are seeing now in Venezuela.

Lovers of Meganesia will appreciate this!

How ethical is it for a libertarian to use welfare?

On one hand, it returns looted funds to the market, weakening the aggressor and provoking a crisis/default of social programs. On the other, isn’t this simply an ethical, beautiful justification to latch onto the budget teat?

Mesh Enok

Actually, in your question itself, you have already pointed out the main arguments “for” and “against” 😉 All that’s left for me is to expand on the reasoning a bit.

The goal of libertarians in politics (to the extent that it makes sense for libertarians to set political goals at all) is to bring about the collapse of the state redistribution system, and the use of any state benefits and subsidies contributes to achieving this goal, of course.

In what cases is such behavior not justified for a libertarian? In those where receiving some benefit from the state causes direct harm to specific people, and this harm would not have been caused if the libertarian had not claimed the benefit. For example, a libertarian applies to the social security department for a replacement for a dilapidated apartment; the city has no vacant apartments, but the mayor, for populist reasons, pressures a developer, and the developer allocates an apartment.

Well, in other words, the general ethical principle is as follows: taking what the state has already decided to give, and for which it has already taken resources from people, is halal; asking the state to take from another private individual and give to you is haram.

Can a libertarian, without violating their principles, campaign for an increase in social budget expenditures? Surprisingly, they can. If the issue at hand is not the overall volume of seizures from people, but the distribution of what has already been seized, then it is quite appropriate to lobby for an increase in social spending at the expense of reducing spending on the army, police, intelligence services, the maintenance of the state apparatus, and the “national economy.”

But, of course, it is very important that the libertarian be ready, at the first opportunity, to push away that very budget teat with relief and abolish it entirely. If, when the moment comes, they start hesitating and making excuses, it means they weren’t much of a libertarian all this time. Ultimately, convictions are tested by deeds, not rhetoric.

What will happen to electricity and housing and communal services in general under ancap?

Anonchik Oleg

Generally speaking, it is clear why electricity was chosen for this question. Although there are currently a vast number of producers of this type of energy on the market, the end consumer’s ability to choose a provider is usually quite limited. So limited, in fact, that we can safely consider as typical a situation where the consumer always deals with only one provider.

Are there any prerequisites for a different arrangement to become the norm under ancap? Generally, no, since the current state of affairs is caused not by government regulation, but by the characteristics of the market. However, today the state, at least in Russia, regulates prices in this market, and the natural question arises: will they skyrocket if they are completely deregulated?

The norm where electricity is primarily produced by a large producer is linked to the fact that there is a pronounced positive economy of scale in this industry: a large producer has lower production costs. The norm where the end consumer is usually connected to only one power grid also has a quite understandable origin. What, then, will limit the greed of the electricity producer, as well as the greed of the grid owner?

The most obvious market constraint on the retail price of such centrally supplied electricity is, of course, home generation. The higher the retail price in the grid, the more profitable decentralized energy production becomes, whether it be solar panels, wind turbines on the roof, or simply a banal gas boiler in the basement.

Does it turn out that large producers together with power grids in a free market can inflate the price almost to the level of the cost of private generation? Generally, no, and here is why.

The thing is, the positive economy of scale works for large producers only if a large amount of electricity is produced. If a power plant is large but operates at 5% capacity, then the production cost, considering equipment depreciation, ends up being much higher than if the generation parameters were close to optimal. Therefore, the electricity producer is interested in selling all the energy that they are technically capable of producing. Moreover, artificially lowering generation opens up a field for potential competitors.

And so it happens that without any tariff commissions or other remnants of state planning, in a developed free electricity market, the producer’s margin drops to average market values for business in general, meaning roughly to the average bank deposit rate.

And this is without me even considering exotics like large-scale solar or wind generation, where the price of energy fluctuates depending on the weather, and on sunny or windy days producers might even pay consumers just to burn off the excess electricity produced—precisely such excesses will eventually be solved by developing energy storage technologies.

May I not examine all other types of utility services in such detail? I assure you, the same patterns apply there, with their own peculiarities, but leading just as surely to quite reasonable limits on tariffs.

So, shall we burn?

Is the use of violence by ancaps against representatives of law enforcement agencies, such as the police or army, who are violently enforcing the state and its laws, aggressive or nonetheless defensive?

анонимный вопрос

To be honest, such questions feel somewhat dogmatic to me. It’s as if someone started pestering an imam, for example: “Is the killing of infidels a defensive jihad—or an offensive one?”

Well, in the name of the great and merciful Market, I shall begin!

Since the state is a system of institutionalized violence against private property, then, of course, any person who is a subject of any given state has grounds to present property claims against that state. Since no state not only refuses to consider the possibility of restitution for property forcibly seized from people, but also applies sanctions for the very act of contesting such seizure, it must be concluded that an open conflict exists between the state and the individual, which is essentially a euphemism for the term “war.” In our case, it is a form of guerrilla warfare.

Thus, the question of how appropriate it is for an individual to use violence against certain state employees is merely a question of the laws and customs of war, as well as a question of tactics and strategy.

I remind you that the primary element in this war is the existence of property claims the individual has against the state, arising from the state’s forced seizures of the individual’s private property and the restriction of their freedom. Therefore, victory in the war is brought closer by reducing the rate of seizures and restrictions, reducing the share of state property in total wealth, and reducing the number of civil servants and other persons supported by the state.

So, can you beat up cops after all—or not? Theoretically—you can. Practically—there is usually no point. Privatizing something state-owned or securing a tax deduction is far more useful. Achieving a reduction in tax rates is an extremely noble cause indeed. But killing a state employee is simply killing a human being. It is permissible if they are carrying out a direct attack dangerous to your life, but it will in no way diminish the state, reduce taxes, or weaken regulations. On the contrary, it more often leads to a tightening of the screws and personal bitterness toward you from the deceased’s previously indifferent colleagues. So, this offensive jihad is not the duty of a libertarian.

Now, the widespread looting of state property kills the state quickly and reliably, even one as powerful and creepy as the late USSR. Widespread sabotage of taxes and regulations does the same. It is this defensive jihad that is more pleasing to the Market.

May the Market guide you on the straight path and be favorable to you. Amen!

The omnipotent Market knows best!

Can the free town of Christiania be considered an anarcho-capitalist community, even if only in its infancy?

анонимный вопрос

The more I read about Christiania, the more parallels I find with Elausestere—a group of islands on the outskirts of the Tuamotu Archipelago where, according to the Meganesian Cycle by Alexander Rozov—a piece of sci-fi popular among Russian libertarians—a communist enclave existed within a minarchist confederation.

A group of people homesteads unclaimed property, organizes self-governance, establishes its own exotic order, and then the outside world eventually notices this commune, and its first impulse is obvious: to bring it to a common denominator. It quickly becomes clear that this is, first, difficult; second, disapproved of by local residents; third, not approved by all other citizens; and finally, that profit can be derived from this attraction.

Next come the negotiations, a partial adaptation of the enclave to external rules of the game—and that’s it, it lives freely and happily in symbiosis with its surroundings.

What is more prevalent in today’s Christiania—anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, or is it simply something like a Chinatown, only formed not by cultural-ethnic, but simply by cultural traits? From the state’s point of view—definitely the third. An anarcho-capitalist will see primarily ancap traits in Christiania. I think an ancom will see primarily ancom traits.

Well, it’s wonderful that Christiania managed to please everyone and allow each person to see something of their own in it!

I’ve made a note for myself: when I travel around Europe, I’ll stop by Christiania.

For weed, against heroin; for bicycles, against cars. Moderation itself!

Why not sell libertarianism through the idea of the absence of state regulation, especially when there is the example of the flourishing of entrepreneurship in 1998-1999, when they left business alone and let it develop?

анонимный вопрос

This question was clearly inspired by my post “to whom and how to sell libertarianism?“, and is an invitation to develop the topic.

But the example you chose was not very successful. In 1998-1999, there was no conscious deregulation; the state simply defaulted on its credit obligations, which led to it stopping borrowing for quite some time. Investors, no longer having such a tempting option as investing in government securities, began to invest more actively in the real sector. Moreover, the financial crisis sharply lowered the cost of assets, and the fall of the ruble lowered the cost of labor. In general, in full accordance with the Austrian theory of the economic cycle, recovery after a crash happens quickly if one does not interfere with the process, which is what happened—not because the government was so wise, but because it was bewildered and did not know where to start.

So the example you proposed is more about the fact that state non-interference in the economy during a crisis has a very beneficial effect on the economy. Even to illustrate that state non-interference in the economy has a beneficial effect on it in general at any moment, additional examples are needed, and better yet—logical arguments. Although, of course, people love history precisely because it is a set of instructive tales for any life situation, so do not hesitate to provide historical examples if you see that they are in demand with the audience. You won’t prove anything with them, but you certainly can sell an ideology.

After all, for people, 1998 is more associated with something like this, rather than with the liberation of business…