If anarchism is historically a left-wing movement, isn’t ancap an eclectic current?

I would say that the “left-wing movement” is precisely a typically eclectic trend, as it is a set of completely incompatible concepts. Here you have freedom of expression and political correctness. The absence of exploitation and high taxes. The right to work and war against strikebreakers. Freedom of conscience and sharia. The dictatorship of the proletariat and parliamentary democracy.

Similarly, anarchism is eclectic if considered without specifying terms via hyphens. The only thing all anarchist trends have in common is the indication of the possibility and desirability of liberating society from the state. Otherwise, anarchists have a complete muddle, from “property is sacred” to “property is theft,” from apologists of the labor theory of value to marginalists, from those who see the basis of all prosperity in the division of labor to those who see in it the root of all evil.

Anarcho-capitalism can be quite clearly depicted as the intersection of sets. You know, all those circles with shaded areas, reminiscent of the currently fashionable multicolored blobs. Everything that does not contradict economic theory is taken from anarchism, and everything that does not contradict the NAP is taken from capitalism. The result is a quite coherent doctrine, practically cleansed of eclecticism. This is easily verified: ask the same questions to a wide variety of ancaps, and you will receive answers that are very close in content. Such a trick would not work with eclectic doctrines.

I could have drawn two blobs who are friends by organism, but I’m too lazy

Is a state necessary, what functions can (should) it perform, and why is minarchy not enough?

anonymous question

You know, one could trivially answer that the state is unnecessary because — and then follows a long list of problems it causes. One could refer to the fact that the smaller the scale of state intervention, the more the economy flourishes. But values are subjective, and one cannot answer for everyone that the state is unnecessary. There are plenty of people who love having a boot in their backside right now, and many demand that it be shoved even deeper. Minarchy isn’t enough for them; they want socialism; they were taught in school that under socialism there is liberty, equality, and fraternity, or at least order and security.

voluntarily and with a song!

Nevertheless, such an approach doesn’t work as an argument either. There is always a high percentage of conformists in society who will approve of the status quo, no matter how strange it is, so claiming that the majority sincerely and actively desires the state—to the point that they would come out to defend it—would also be rash.

Asking state representatives whether the state is necessary, and how about shifting a bit here to free up a small plot for ancap — well, that would be completely naive.

So, to get a correct answer to the question of whether the state is necessary, one must first achieve the appearance of a normally relatively pure ancap somewhere, and then let the market decide via migration and monetary flows. If people wishing “to make the state great again” consistently appear under ancap, then the state is necessary. For example, simply because one needs to have someone to grumble at. But if after a generation of living under ancap, the state is perceived as a strange, ancient, barbaric institution like trial by ordeal or some other omerta, then it means the state as such is not needed by humans; it’s just that it happens to exist now, and many put up with it.

Will there be some kind of protection against these very pyramids and other variants of “fuck-business” under ancap?

Recent experience with “Cashberry” shows that the institution of reputation doesn’t really work here, and people, despite obvious facts, continue to pour money into it.

anonymous question

I will refer to a classic. Sergey Mavrodi, when launching another of his contraptions, explained in detail that existing money is a financial pyramid, and that what he was doing was exactly the same kind of pyramid, only better, because it brought a higher percentage. So it cannot be said that those who invest in hyips (High Yield Investment Projects) are unaware of anything. On the contrary, there is a fairly wide circle of people who are enthusiastically engaged in all this, scouring the web for fresh pyramids to enter as early as possible and manage to jump off before the scam happens. Then, referral networks begin to form; after some time come the first joyful reviews from those who managed to recover their deposit; and after some more time, it all ends, and people look for something new.

Gambling is great; it brings people joy and a sense of fullness of life. The market always decides for gambling; it grows through the asphalt even in a situation of complete and unconditional prohibition. You simply shouldn’t get in its way; let it compete peacefully with other types of expensive leisure. All these considerations apply fully to such a variety of gambling as financial pyramids or lotteries.

Let’s return to ancap. The issuance of securities, tokens, debt obligations, lottery tickets is not regulated at all. In other words, there is complete freedom for all kinds of hyips. Those who need exactly that do not need any protection; they are already aware that this is a high risk. The question, therefore, comes down to how the situation will change under ancap, compared to the current state of affairs, for the case of “a person looking for a reliable investment tool and trying not to run into a hyip.”

You know, in terms of the tools used to differentiate one investment product from another, little will change. You will still need to carefully study every offer, use logic, research the notorious reputation, and so on. Perhaps the market will decide for the many rating agencies, including those working on order, or perhaps people won’t be willing to pay for such things, and you’ll have to gather all the information yourself.

But the loudest alarm bell telling an investor not to get involved is, of course, the referral program. If a project pays for attracting clients, the probability that it is not a pyramid is non-zero, but if you are looking for an investment project specifically, why do you need this nonsense where the main profit is expected from attracting new people rather than from the investments themselves? Tell the agitator to get lost and look for something else.

Isn’t Microsoft a monopolist in the field of operating systems?

Of course, other OSs exist, but Windows is much more popular than something like Debian. Moreover, as far as I know, this monopoly status is not supported by the state (quite the opposite), but arose precisely in the free software market.

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, you are proposing to discuss Microsoft as an example of a monopoly that emerged and remains stable in a free market.

Indeed, Microsoft once created a very successful solution that significantly lowered the entry barrier for users into the world of personal computers, both due to ease of use and the fact that MS DOS was very undemanding of resources compared to the monstrous Unix. Then, a decent graphical shell was created on top of the system. Later, when software compactness became non-critical for most users, the company’s products responded in time and began to evolve toward expanding functionality and improving design. In general, skillful adherence to market incentives allowed the company to gain a good share of the desktop OS market. The accumulated network effect is such that individual failed products, like Windows Vista, are no longer capable of killing the company; a long series of bad decisions would be required for that. Nevertheless, such a thing is quite possible. For instance, Google’s browser dealt with Internet Explorer, despite its deep rooting in the system and its initially almost monopolistic position.

Of course, one could argue that the state supported Microsoft by pursuing pirates. If software monetization issues were left entirely to the producer, there would be fewer distortions. But this does not look like a factor that helps only Microsoft and not its competitors. So, in general, we can consider the market here to be free in a first approximation.

And how is this large company faring under free market conditions? It is having a hard time. In the shrinking market for PC operating systems, its share is consistently large, although far from 100%. It failed to really squeeze into the mobile OS market, where two other manufacturers dominate. Gaming consoles, augmented reality glasses, and many other products also haven’t quite taken off powerfully.

In other words, we see that all the horrors that political economy textbooks frighten us with regarding monopolies are not applicable to Microsoft: it cannot relax, hike up prices, and collect monopoly rent; it must, just like everyone else, diligently improve its products and maintain a flexible pricing policy so that even low-income clients prefer to buy Windows rather than pirate it — and yet, one by one, IT companies are surpassing it in capitalization.

just a company like any other…

Does the idea of limiting voting rights contradict libertarianism?

If a citizen can gain the right to vote by paying voluntary taxes, and in the event of inability or unwillingness to vote — simply not pay taxes (state fees, etc., not counted).

анонимный вопрос

Everything here depends on exactly what issues are being decided by the vote.

If it is a local referendum deciding on a ban on the sale of alcohol within the municipality at night, then it is completely irrelevant whether the citizen pays taxes voluntarily or by compulsion — in any case, the enforcement of the decision of such a referendum would contradict libertarian principles. This is even more true for more egregious cases, such as when, for example, a deputy is elected who will have the power to enact arbitrary regulations.

If, for example, a vote by the residents of a condominium decides whether to allocate only the playground for children to celebrate Ivan Kupala, or let them splash around wherever they want, then it is completely irrelevant whether you live in this courtyard and pay your utility bills on time or not; restricting your right to vote on this principle would be unjustified, since this is not about the distribution of money, but about a temporary change in the rules for using a common resource.

But, of course, in all cases where voting concerns the distribution of certain funds collected into a common pool, counting only the votes of those who contributed to that pool is a completely natural tactic for libertarians.

There is, however, one more nuance. For example, one initiative group collected money and voted to use that money to put up a monument to Stalin in a private park, leasing a site from the park owner for this purpose. Another initiative group collected money and decided by vote to fence the monument to Stalin with barbed wire, placing decorative machine-gun towers at the corners of the fence, and also leased the territory for this installation from the park owner. If the first initiative group wanted to initiate a conflict in society, it achieved its goal. But if they wanted to quietly and peacefully lay flowers for the friend of all children, then it made sense to also inquire about the opinion of those who did not chip in for the monument, but who still have an opinion. Either they will be benignly indifferent, and then why not put it up, or they will be actively against it, and then it is worth thinking thrice.

private initiative

What punishment could a hacker receive under ancap for their deeds? And a pentester, if they perform a hack to help, without warning the potential victim/person being saved?

ℛØ௶Ꭿℒ ℋᎯℭᏦℰℛ (question paid in the amount of 0.00119699btc)

Thank you for broadening my horizons, now I know what a pentester is))

Who is a hacker or a pentester from a legal point of view? They are a trespasser, that is, a violator of the boundaries of private property. Such a violation in itself does not yet cause damage to the property owner, but the owner has every right to oppose it.

At the same time, the owner’s arbitrariness in choosing means of opposition is limited. It is one thing to repel the break-in itself (I opened your gate and peeked inside, you glare at me fiercely, as if to say, “what are you staring at,” I close the gate, turn around and walk past), and another thing to pursue the person who carried out this break-in. You are no longer on your own territory, the intrusion is not currently happening, so what are your grounds for using violence?

Such grounds could only be a property claim. The right to shoot a real physical trespasser who has violated the boundaries of your private property arises only because you have strong reasons to assume a real threat to your property. And even then, in most cases, the court considers that such grounds arise only when the property boundary is clearly marked, a “Trespassers will be shot” sign is installed on the boundary, and the violator saw and ignored it.

Thus, even if, by putting in some effort, you managed to reliably determine the identity of the hacker who broke into a particular network resource of yours, you will not be able to legally demand any compensation from them until you explain exactly what damage was caused. At the same time, copying information, even if it is very dear to you, does not cause damage. Now, if, for example, the hacker caused a server malfunction and your online store did not work for two hours—that is already real damage, the size of which can be assessed. As for how property damage is handled under ancap, I have already described that extensively.

Obviously, few people will undertake to spend a vast amount of resources on searching for a hacker and bringing them to court; most, of course, will prefer passive defense, as it is ultimately cheaper. And here, pentesters with their profit motive are the first friends of business. By arranging penetration tests followed by detailed information security recommendations, they will cheaply provide owners of information resources with prevention of hacker attacks.

Of course, the market is unlikely to “solve” hackers completely; this will remain a niche for enthusiasts of exciting intellectual earnings for quite a while. But, having settled down, a hacker will, of course, move into more profitable sectors.

I want stickers for Telegram

Since the post suggesting that I use a donation to organize the Adam Smith Readings did not reach the threshold number of likes, it can be concluded that you would prefer me to spend your donations on something interesting for my channel. So, it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to create my own sticker pack. On one hand, this would please an indefinitely wide circle of people, and on the other, it would help increase the channel’s visibility among an audience that would otherwise be slightly harder to reach.

Let’s do this. In the comments to this post, leave ideas for stickers in roughly this format: the emoji the sticker will be linked to, some meme quote from one of my posts (optional), or any other meme phrase, a rough idea for the image, or even a link to a sketch. Ideas, of course, can and should be liked, commented on, and refined.

In addition to ideas, an artist will be needed. Organizing a full-scale sticker pack competition would be a bit too much for me, so let’s do this: draw one sticker so the style can be evaluated and post a link to the image in the comments. I will choose the author whose style I like (taking your likes into account, of course!), and we will discuss further details. As for the rates, I suggest guiding ourselves by 0.00100000 btc for the first sticker, and 0.00050000 btc for each subsequent one. Plus, of course, attribution for the sticker pack, if you so desire.

I kindly ask you to share this post widely to reach more potential contractors—it is in your own interest if we manage to find a truly great artist willing to take on the sticker pack.

Is vigilantism possible under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

This is also a fairly popular question; early answers can be found under the tag “court”, so it will be difficult to provide something new, but I will try.

Right here, I defined a court as a legal institution within which a conflict between parties is resolved by a third party, with the clarification that under ancap, a court can resolve conflicts only within the scope of the authority delegated to it by the parties to the conflict. I have also previously referred to the legal principle that no one can be a judge in their own cause.

Thus, formally, vigilantism is not a legal procedure, and the question could be closed on that basis, but the real world introduces its own corrections.

First, a person is fully entitled to exercise vigilantism upon themselves. They repented for some of their old actions and settled their accounts with life. Or decided to give ten bitcoins to charity. Or rewarded themselves with a couple of cocktails for meeting a deadline. This is vigilantism: the person evaluated their own actions, appointed the measure of retribution, and carried out the sentence themselves.

Second, in a conflict situation, one party may surrender themselves to the judgment of the other party. For example, I messed up, I surrender myself to your judgment, decide fairly how I should compensate for the damage. This could be an act of trust that strengthens further relations, an act of recklessness that lays the foundation for a future deep grievance, or a subtle manipulation designed to touch the other party and force them to forgive—it all depends on a multitude of circumstances, but in any case, such a deal also remains voluntary, and therefore legal, and this can also be called vigilantism.

Third, one of the parties to the conflict may decide to inflict some damage on the second party and be satisfied with that. I was overcharged at a restaurant, they were rude in response to a remark, I calmly walk outside, smash the display window, and leave. This is also vigilantism: the restaurant was sentenced by me to the destruction of its window. Is this a legal procedure? No. Is it possible under ancap? Yes. Will the conflict be exhausted after the application of this procedure? Quite possibly, if the passive party to the conflict, upon rational reflection, decides that to hell with it, it’s cheaper than going to court.

The broken windows theory in all its glory

In connection with the shooting, but not about shootings

As usual, after every shooting, a discussion about the regulation of gun control begins. Mikhail Pozharsky took an interesting approach. Generally being a supporter of the liberalization of such control, he points out that both those who demand a ban on weapons in connection with shootings and those who demand their liberalization are based on an illusion of control. Namely, statists are under the illusion that the state can effectively protect against shootings, and liberals are equally convinced that armed citizens can protect themselves effectively; meanwhile, effective protection against shootings does not exist, people are simply afraid to admit that their lives depend on chance. He then provides statistics.

I have already promised to refrain from formulas here, and similarly, I do not want to get bogged down in the analysis of those very statistics. There are a number of grievances regarding them; as an example, I will provide a link to a post by Vladimir Popov; more can be found, but I will not delve into the depths.

The factor that seems most important to me is practically impossible to measure with statistics, because it is psychology. I already mentioned this yesterday in the context of the fact that weapons are a powerful stimulus for the development of mutual politeness; therefore, an increase in the armament of schoolchildren will lead to them having to curb their enthusiasm for bullying and other teenage antics, and this will also affect the frequency of mass shootings. To this, Mikhail replied that he does not understand where the myth about the politeness of armed people came from. Take the States, for example—no particular politeness is observed there, “fuck” every other word.

Yes, let’s take the States. It is clear that referring to the extremely low number of murders in the Wild West is banal; one can always counter that such ancient data is irrelevant. Let’s take modern America, specifically African Americans—who, from the perspective of the average person, are all thugs with guns and complete contempt for the law.

What have these guys contributed to world culture? Rap battles! In Russia, the art of profanity is primarily the art of humiliating a completely powerless subordinate. The boatswain’s tirade, warrant officers, and so on. To a lesser extent, it is an undirected complaint about a hard life. There, however, it is precisely a dialogue between equals, in which the virtuosity of the insult is valued, and victory is awarded for exactly that; and if someone loses their temper and pulls out a gun during a battle, well, that is, excuse me, bad form.

This is simply another example for you that any armed community will inevitably develop its own means of conflict de-escalation, whereas a forcibly disarmed one is more likely to invent sophisticated ways to spite others from the shadows.

What is an acceptable reaction to a verbal insult for a libertarian (given that it is committed without the use of physical violence)? How can one influence the insulter so that they lose the desire to do so again?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

This is a very popular question that has been asked of me in various formulations more than once. Here is a recent answer about stepping on a foot. Here is another one, about ideological enmity. Here is one about psychological aggression. Here is one about the impossibility of getting away from an unpleasant neighbor. And here is one about stalking.

But, as one poet wrote—who, like all Soviet people, knew the ins and outs of the language of hatred—”the more times you see him, the more times you kill him!” So, I will take up your question and try to uncover the topic in a slightly new way.

As a starter, I suggest listening to Davud Zulumkhanov’s report at the seventh Adam Smith Readings in 2015 “On the Origin of Honesty”. There, he conveys a very important thesis:

An honest person cannot be insulted because he has no “honor”—that is a brigand’s term. Therefore, “insult” and “feeling insulted” are the weapons of brigands. Feeling insulted is a pretext for obtaining a “legal right to use violence.” An insult is a provocation of the other party to take actions that can be legally answered with violence.

Davud Zulumkhanov

So how can one influence the person insulting you so that they lose the desire to do it again? You can turn to Davud again and use his prescription:

A merchant cannot be insulted.

— You are a scoundrel, you are a villain, and your entire lineage were thieves!

And the merchant smiles and says:

— Yes, yes, but still, I won’t give it away for less than fifty.

Davud Zulumkhanov

However, it is unlikely that this advice fully answers your question, because such an answer does not guarantee that the brigand’s craving for insults will disappear. Perhaps you should respond in their own brigand language.

For example, Navalny accepted General Zolotov’s challenge in exact accordance with their brigand dueling code, choosing a weapon in which he was strong and the general was weak. The general backed out, and now, by the very laws of honor he himself appealed to, he was dishonored. Will his craving for violence disappear? Not necessarily. But the craving for insults—almost certainly.

Or, for instance, Kadyrov showed up before the Ingush elder Mukhazhir Nalgyev with a hundred people, claiming that the latter had made disrespectful remarks about him. But local residents began to gather to defend the elder, and what did this lead to? Kadyrov apologized and left. Kadyrov, unlike Zolotov, actually understands something about honor, which he demonstrated.

In the post about stepping on a foot, I described how the escalation of conflict occurs. If people had only escalation available among all conflict resolution tools, they would have run out very quickly. Well, you know all those tales that if you permit short-barreled firearms, these crazies will quickly shoot each other dead. But quite logical fears of such an outcome also lead to the development of such an important tool for de-escalating conflict as an apology.

Where is the highest probability of receiving an insult? Of course, on the internet. Because the internet is a gun-free zone. But go to a practical shooting competition, and there you will hear constant bowing and scraping: “esteemed shooter,” “esteemed judge.” Because everyone has a gun, plenty of ammo, and excitement—try not to be polite in such a case.

To summarize. Insults are countered by calmness, politeness, and firmness of position—that is, indicating, on one hand, your willingness to apologize if you have inadvertently offended someone, but on the other hand, your readiness to respond with force if the insulter does not apologize themselves. As for the prevention of insults, you will have to acquire a reputation as a person who is not worth insulting.