The new Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro introduces two of his advisors to the public: Bastiat and Mises. An excellent choice, it seems to me!
I’m happy for the Brazilians
Reputation under ancap, part 2
Yesterday I published a model of a reputation engine for ancap that was submitted to me for review, and today I will tell you what I think about it
I will start, as usual, with a definition. Reputation is the conclusion drawn by a potential counterparty regarding a certain subject and the prospects of interacting with them, based on the full extent of their knowledge about that subject. Thus, reputation is not a property of the subject. My reputation in the eyes of socialism-chan and my reputation in the eyes of minarchism-chan are two completely different reputations, and the difference between them is no less than the difference between the concepts of “execution” and “a fine”.
Many have heard about the Chinese social credit system. The state collects a vast amount of the most diverse data about a citizen, then using an incredibly complex and opaque algorithm, it puts two and two together and concludes how reliable this citizen appears to be to the state. The higher the rating, the more freedoms it is willing to grant the citizen; the lower it is, the more it restricts them. The goal of this entire system is social engineering—the cultivation of the perfect human of the future. I don’t know if market offers for “boosting” ratings have appeared yet, but if not, they simply must appear soon.
Everyone knows about the Russian Unified State Exam (USE) system. The state forces schoolchildren to take a test of monstrous proportions, and then forces universities to admit applicants based on a single criterion: the result of this test. I don’t need to tell you what phenomenal results are demonstrated in this test by natives of certain national republics.
Examples can be multiplied, but I think it is already clear that the forceful imposition of one’s own assessments of someone’s reputation on others is not the true Tao. It’s not even about the fact that such systems will be attempted to be cheated, but about the coercion itself. In ancap, however, any system that collects certain data about people and derives assessments from it can be implemented only if people voluntarily begin to use that system.
How do I envision a near-ideal reputation system? Something like this:
— Siri, look at the proposal from Bitarch; can this guy be trusted?
— I have performed an express analysis of the proposal itself and what is available about Bitarch in open sources. Based on your previous preferences, Ancap-sama, the probability that you will trust him is 85%. The probability that he will betray your trust should cooperation begin is 7%. You specified a trust threshold of 80%; may I respond to him affirmatively, or would you like to review the details?
— Give me the details.
— Hi!
Of course, just as people try to get the maximum score on the USE or the maximum social rating in China, they will want to optimize their requests for the reputation assessment system I use—in this example, Siri. But they will strive to earn my trust in the same way now, when a lot of data has to be collected manually.
The more routine I want to remove from my life, the more typical decisions will be entrusted to my virtual consigliere. But first, one way or another, I will have to train this neural network on my preferences; otherwise, the result is unlikely to consistently please me.
As for the system you proposed, people will be willing to take its recommendations into account only if it somehow becomes very important to them that a person, for the sake of increasing their reputation, be willing to contribute to charity. I doubt such a quality would concern me if, for example, I am looking for a one-night stand or choosing a model of hiking boots. But if I need to find a home for a litter of homeless kittens, then that’s a different story.
Reputation under ancap
Bitarch (topic disclosure paid in the amount of 0.005btc)
Today I have an unusual format. In essence, this is not about answering a question, but a review of a full, detailed proposal. Therefore, I would like to split the topic into two posts. Today’s post will outline the proposal itself, and in tomorrow’s, I would like to provide a detailed overview of the topic of reputation and the construction of reputation systems. Discussion in the comments is highly welcome.
As we all understand, under ancap, the institution of reputation will play a significant role. Imagine that a person is not yet well-known in the community or wants to atone for their past “sins” by creating or restoring a reputation. There is an organization or a blockchain project to which this person can make a donation and receive in return an ID with reputation points. They can show this to other people when conducting transactions to increase trust. If they cheat, the victim can file a complaint with this system, and the fraudster will lose the reputation points for which they previously made a donation (more precisely, their ID with negative reviews will be useless for concluding deals in the future). To exclude fraud on the part of the victim, the reputation service may also require them to make a donation of a similar amount (and they will also make their own reputation ID useless if they lie and are caught). The result is a reputation system in which it is not profitable for the parties to deceive each other from the perspective of game theory. The donations received can be directed toward funding public goods (schools, hospitals, roads, science, ecology, etc.), simultaneously finally dismantling the main argument of statists against libertarians: “If a person has no insurance and no friends, who will take care of them in old age, provide medical treatment, free education for children, and so on?”.
How do you evaluate this system?
New donation
I value consistency in people. This is the third donation from Bitarch, and today is his benefit.
How and to whom to sell libertarianism?
анонимный вопрос
Libertarianism can be sold to everyone, but, of course, in different ways.
The simplest and most obvious approach is to sell it to those who are already ready to buy, they just don’t know it yet. That is, simply explaining to spontaneous libertarians that they are indeed libertarians, and why their worldview is not something terrible or selfish, and that they shouldn’t be ashamed of it; in short, buddy, you’re not a faggot, you’re gay, and that sounds proud. In principle, this is what I do. I wait for a question, I answer it. Then others, having heard such a question, refer to my ready-made answers, or may even simply say, “look at Ancap-chan, there was probably something on this topic.” Although, if we develop the market metaphor, I have less of a sale as such, and more like after-sales support.
The most important thing to convey to such buyers is the benefit of identifying themselves as an open libertarian. For some, it will be relevant to gain coherent notions of the theory, and thereby systematize their understanding of the world, which they can then apply to any life situation themselves. For some, it is more important to feel among like-minded people. For some, feelings are not enough, and they are set on joint activity. Talking about the merits of a product to an attentive, interested client is easy and pleasant; it is enough to have confident knowledge of the product.
It is harder to sell libertarianism to those who generally have an active life position, a sense of justice and self-worth, but whose theoretical background conflicts with libertarianism. For these people, materials like conditional “secular lectures” and five-minute briefs, as well as other educational videos, work well as a start. Then come specific questions, which can lead to explanations of any level of detail. It’s not a fact that you’ll manage to sell your product, but you will leave the client with the impression that the product is generally not bad, and that libertarians themselves are decent people and it is perfectly fine to deal with them. Thus, social democrats, social liberals, ancoms, all sorts of gender activists, ecologists, and whoever else are gradually drawn into our orbit.
It is impossible to fully sell libertarianism to those who are beneficiaries of the current regime, realize it, openly admit it, and approve of this order of things. “I served on a submarine, now at 35 I’m retired, and you want to deprive me of both money and the realization of my moral superiority—fuck off.” To such people, one can only subtly drop individual theses in areas that do not conflict with their platform. For example, the aforementioned submariner can perfectly well absorb the libertarian approach to weapons.
And it is completely useless now to sell libertarianism to those who, under any regime, will approve of the status quo out of considerations like “just in case something happens,” “we’ve never lived rich, no point in starting now,” and so on. As long as Kiselev is on the first channel, they are deaf to our arguments, and when we end up there, they will take our side simply because the bosses know best. The most that can be done regarding them now is to stay in their sight, to loom somewhere on the edge of their consciousness. So that when reforms begin, Praskovya Ilyinishna remembers that she heard something about us, and explains it to Pelageya Kuzminishna herself: “don’t be scared, they aren’t Bolsheviks, they’re libertarians, they’re peaceful, they’re for being able to trade sunflower seeds without patents.” And she would reply: “ah, libertarians! Being old, I thought I heard ‘proletarians.’ Well, if they’re libertarians, then alright.”
Bitcoin’s Anniversary
Congratulations to everyone on the tenth anniversary of Bitcoin’s conception! On October 31, 2008, the white paper of the world’s first cryptocurrency was first published, and everything started…
Since then, the world has changed radically, although many have not yet realized it. Now anyone can open their own settlement account without asking anyone and without introducing themselves, and then send and receive money transfers that cannot be blocked, regardless of what government powers a particular regulator may possess.
In the new world, we have much more freedom and much more responsibility. No one has done more for the coming triumph of ancap than Satoshi Nakamoto, but I will try my best too)))
Who am I writing for?
Telegram does not provide ways to obtain data about one’s audience and understand how this data differs from a priori assumptions. So, as a workaround, I am using my favorite method—a survey. How will I apply the knowledge that, for example, my main audience consists of thousand-year-old grandmothers? Hell if I know; maybe I’ll pay more attention to texts about the design of benches and entryways, as well as the differences between a drug addict and a prostitute.
Ваш возраст
Ваш род занятий
Ancap-chan, how to seduce a girl if I’m also a girl *_*
анонимный вопрос
First and foremost, the main thing I’d like to advise: don’t overthink her thoughts. It’s very easy to convince yourself that, for example, she looked at me strangely, she probably doesn’t like me, I might as well go kill myself with a broom. You will have to clarify a lot of things for certain.
Recall all the fragments of your knowledge regarding advertising, marketing, street agitation, negotiation skills, and so on. Consider how the process of seduction is similar to all the above, which techniques from that repertoire you more or less master, and how all this could be applied. This is mainly to get into an analytical mindset and attack the problem from the most unexpected angles.
As a result, you will develop several tactical ideas, for example:
— I’ll add her as a friend, study what she likes, like some of her posts myself, but not everything indiscriminately, and leave a few comments.
— I’ll strike up a conversation with her in some low-stakes situation, for example, walking together to the bus stop; I’ll bring up a topic for conversation that she seems interested in on social media, I’ll ask more than I chatter myself, and be sure to ask open-ended questions; I’ll be the first to say goodbye, making sure to thank her for the interesting conversation, so that she wants to repeat it sometime.
— then, if the opportunity arises, I’ll invite her to a cafe, take a cozy table, and gradually steer the conversation toward a soulful, trusting tone; I’ll touch upon the fact that guys are, of course, cute creatures, but a bit clumsy, and still will never fully understand you, and that it’s great to have female friends; I’ll share memories of my intimacy with a girl, and that I slightly regret the breakup, and sometimes, depending on the mood, I want to get everything back; I’ll try to get some story about her own experience with girls.
— I’ll get some empathogens and, when we gather together at an apartment, we’ll throw a party with substances; or just with cocktails.
— and from there, it’ll just take off!
Then exhale, turn off the analytics, catch a state of light excitement, and go implement your findings.
Of course, everything will go differently than you planned. She might turn out to be against substances, or an Orthodox activist, or eternally busy, or have a jealous boyfriend who starts hitting on you himself, or something else. Any failure is the best reason to have a good laugh at yourself.
One way or another, you will gain a wealth of impressions and life experience, and it doesn’t matter at all where you end up. Maybe you’ll steal her boyfriend. Maybe you’ll start a joint business with her. Maybe she’ll pounce on you herself on the second date and fuck you. Maybe you’ll just become good friends, without transitioning to any sensual experience. Maybe you’ll quickly get bored of it and switch to something else. Any of these outcomes is better than watching and sighing, but doing nothing to fulfill your desire.
Let’s imagine a situation: a young man threatens a woman with a toy gun (a replica of a real one).
A woman entered self-defense mode and killed a man. Is the woman right in this situation? Is it permissible to kill a person if they point a replica pistol at you?
Alexey Deripaska
You know, a recent episode immediately came to mind, similar to the premise of the comedy “S Legkim Parom” (Enjoy Your Bath), but in the modern USA. A policewoman, thinking she was going to her own home, accidentally enters someone else’s house. There she sees a strange man and immediately kills him, mistaking him for a burglar.
It is quite obvious that in this tragic misunderstanding, the full responsibility lies with the woman, because the object of the attack did absolutely nothing to provoke it. The behavior of the woman, convinced that she had discovered a burglar, is completely logical and commendable: only such a lightning-fast reaction guarantees that the burglar will not have time to draw and use a gun first. But a mistake does not exempt one from responsibility, and a legal proceeding between the woman and the plaintiff, who filed a claim for damages resulting from the killing, will most likely lead to the woman having to pay the costs in full.
But now we add the provocative behavior of the deceased to the problem. It turns out that the emergence of a situation in which the woman defended herself from a presumed attack was caused not just by a tragic mistake, but is a direct consequence of the deceased’s reckless actions. Her behavior is also completely logical and commendable, as in the first case, but the party whose actions directly provoked the accident is different.
Therefore, a potential court proceeding here will most likely conclude that the man who threatened the woman with a dummy gun bears full responsibility. Wanted to play a prank? Well, congratulations, you played a fucking great prank!
Things are getting interesting in Georgia
Presidential elections were held in Georgia on Sunday. Not all ballots have been counted yet, but judging by Russian-language publications, a second round is inevitable. The contenders are the candidate from the ruling “Georgian Dream” party and the candidate from the former ruling party, “United National Movement.” We have all seen how the ruling party resoundingly loses second rounds in Russia, and there is no reason to expect that it will be different in Georgia. So, most likely, Georgia will once again begin to turn back toward the path it deviated from in 2012.
One of his first actions after taking the oath of office, the UNM candidate Grigol Vashadze promises to pardon the third president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, and restore his Georgian citizenship.
And separately, it is worth congratulating the Georgian libertarians, who did not yet have their own political party in the last elections, while in these elections, the libertarian candidate is gaining, according to preliminary counts, more than two percent. For comparison, in the first US elections where a candidate from the Libertarian Party participated, they received fewer than four thousand votes.
There is a very good video blog where it is convenient to follow news from Georgia and Armenia – Alexey Romanov’s channel – subscribe if you haven’t already.