Hi! Please tell me, how can I explain libertarianism to children? :) If possible, simple “on-the-fingers” examples would be super.

анонимный вопрос

The task is indeed quite non-trivial, and here is why.

Capitalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are commodity-money relations. Anarcho-capitalism makes the boundary conditions stricter, specifying that the dominant commodity-money relations must also be voluntary.

Communism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are gift relations, and reputation takes the place of money.

It is easy to see that family is communism, and usually, there is no scent of anarcho-capitalism there. Meanwhile, the task is to tell the children in the family about the values of ancap, and make it so that these values appear attractive to them.

The problem is not even just in telling them, but in the fact that in childhood, the instructions that are reinforced by personal example and are applicable to real life here and now are absorbed best.

It is worth starting with the most basic things.

Property. Indicate that this thing belongs to mom, this to dad, this to the child, and these are in the joint property of the whole family (just don’t use that terrible communist word “common”)

Exchange. Exchanging values is a quite exciting activity for children, and here it is important not only to instill a taste for exchange in the child, but also to explain that exchange must be only voluntary, and that exchange is always unequal: everyone values what they give away less than what they acquire. So if one exchanged something and then changed their mind, the second is not obliged to agree to a reverse exchange.

Contract. Get them used to, if not writing down, at least clearly articulating the terms of exchange; do not hesitate to refer to old contracts, and do not dare to go back on your own word.

Court. If you cannot reach an agreement with the child, look for someone who can arbitrate for you, provided the child also agrees to the adjudication. Let them get used to defending their position before an independent party, and then executing the verdict.

Money. The sooner a child gets their own money, the better. Do not hesitate to hire them for any work you want to get from them. But if they refuse the work, do not dare to compel them. Let them get used to saying the phrase “and what will I get out of this?”

Reputation. Avoid inducing shame in the child; it is far more important to make them understand that their reputation in such-and-such a field looks poor, and now they are not trusted in this, but in this other area, they can be fully trusted.

Compensation for costs. Again, instead of shaming, suggest they think about how they could compensate for the damage. It is useful to haggle, not agreeing to the very first offer. If you yourself have somehow betrayed their trust, also boldly offer compensation, and let them decide whether to accept the offer.

Self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense. Here, you may have to conflict with other adults who maintain the view that a child fundamentally has no right to fight, and can at most complain to adults. Do not hesitate to arrange a full judicial proceeding following such incidents, naturally, on a voluntary basis. If the court then decides that your child did indeed cause unlawful damage to someone, you must ensure that they pay compensation.

In general, try to start treating the child as an equal subject as early as possible. They may lack knowledge or skills, but this does not deprive them of their rights. Knowledge and skills are things that can be acquired.

A mediocre example of a contract: the service provided is not defined, and there are no termination conditions. But even such a contract is far better than its absence.

How does anarcho-capitalism view the actual situation in Russia?

анонимный вопрос

Here, I really want to start with an extended quote from a source I constantly refer to—our Political Science-chan, Ekaterina Schulmann:

As for the actual state of affairs, generally speaking, the Russian person is a spontaneous libertarian, but does not know it and would never call themselves such. In reality, they are very inclined toward libertarian values, namely: they do not trust the state, state institutions, or law enforcement agencies. In general, they trust no one except personal acquaintances. They tend to rely only on themselves and their closest relatives. Accordingly, they would like it if no one messed with them, if they were left in peace and not told how to live. In other words, these libertarian values are very strong in Russian people.

Ekaterina Schulmann

At the same time, the opposite view is entirely justified: Russia is a country of ingrained social-democratic values, and the ideal state for the majority of Russians is the Scandinavian countries, with low levels of inequality, comfortable prisons, officials on bicycles, and broad public discussion of all issues—in short, a proper Soviet government as it should be, according to the project documentation. The high taxes and strict regulations attached to this model are perceived as a fully justified price for this paternalistic paradise.

And finally, it would be strange not to mention the viewpoint that the Russian person is a sucker and a doormat, burdened by Stockholm syndrome and learned helplessness. Their motto is “initiative is punishable”, and not “punishable by being ordered to implement the initiative”, as in the ideal Confucian China, but literally punishable by a blow to the head so that they don’t stick their neck out. They harbor no illusions about the benevolence of state power, but justify the actions of officials by believing that they themselves would behave the same way in their place.

The first category—these are our natural allies. They might not provide active support because they are busy with their own peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs, but at the very least, at the right moment, they will look away and not snitch on people for their peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs.

The second category—these are our natural allies. They understand the importance of jointly solving local problems, the ability to negotiate, and the desire to unite around common interests, rather than simply on the principle of “us versus them.”

The third category—these are our natural allies. Gradually, it dawns on them that an official is not some inexorable force, omnipotent and omniscient. An official is a ridiculous idiot who doesn’t dare take a step without instructions, yet treats orders according to the principles of “wait to execute—they’ll cancel it” and “if you can shift the responsibility—shift it.” Finally, these people realize that an official immediately loses all their superior arrogance when facing a crowd one-on-one. And then officials can be peacefully pelted with snowballs, as in Volokolamsk, or subjected to “garbage lustrations,” as in Ukraine, but if things get really heated, it can even lead to defenestrations, which our Slavic brothers in the Czech Republic loved to use.

mm, lustrations!

Of course, sometimes with allies like these, you don’t even need enemies. Of course, such allies are too easily lured by communist slogans, and then they will go beat up the liberalists and the bourgeois. Therefore, as unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to perform the important work of creating the correct image of the enemy in these people’s heads. This is precisely why Mikhail Svetov, with his propaganda of hatred toward the nomenklatura, is also doing important work; I couldn’t do it, I find it much more pleasant to tell various optimistic tales about how we can organize ourselves.

How did you get acquainted with Libertarianism? What is your story?

анонимный вопрос

Many people say that they came to libertarianism imperceptibly; simply one fine day, their more erudite acquaintances informed them that the set of views they were projecting is called libertarianism.

It happened a bit strangely for me. I knew the word itself, but I interpreted it purely phenomenologically—that libertarians are supporters of removing the state from the economy and the private lives of citizens. Then, I mentioned to a friend that I was a libertarian; she heard an unfamiliar term and looked it up on Wikipedia. At the time, it wasn’t the current, relatively balanced article, but right from the start it stated that libertarians are guys who advocate for the rejection of aggressive violence. I was like: what? What does this crap even have to do with my interest? And so I started digging into the matter in detail. Since then, like that Shulman who doesn’t understand what could be more fascinating than parliamentarism (except perhaps British literature, but best of all, British literature about parliamentarism), I don’t understand what could be more fascinating than economic theory and libertarian law, although the abbreviation NAP and its many derivatives still make me cringe a little.

I sincerely believe that selling libertarianism to people through the NAP is methodologically incorrect and provokes people to view us as some kind of strange freaks. Purely aesthetically, the NAP can only be convincingly advocated by a person with a weapon, ready to use it at any moment for self-defense, because the non-aggression principle is the ethics of armed people, not the whim of the unarmed. If you are a clumsy lady, a pampered girl with manicured nails, or a slender metrosexual, advocate for something else.

Sorry, I got carried away, but you asked for personal stories, and I have them.

“Remember, children: NAP is when everyone has everyone else in their sights, but no one shoots”
For variety, I decided to record an audio version of the story; perhaps some will prefer the voice format

Alright, so I’m telling my mom about ancap, and she says, like, she doesn’t want the nineties with scammers and gangsters again. How do I hammer ancap into her head?

Vasya from the third entrance

No matter how much one wants to always take the straightest path to a goal, if the interlocutor’s head is already shaped like a screw-hole, it’s pointless to hammer something straight in there; you have to screw it in.

This is where marketing comes to our rescue, with all its techniques aimed at increasing sales. For example, it makes sense to understand exactly what pain lies behind a mother’s objections. Because what is the point of talking about social safety nets in private companies in a free market in an affluent society, if her pain isn’t caused by the demise of Soviet social security, but, say, by savings burned in some financial pyramid, or by shootouts in the streets. Then, we work with that pain.

Pyramids

Explain that the most important reason for the rapid rise of pyramids was the need to protect one’s savings from hyperinflation, and hyperinflation was caused by the state’s frantic emission of money. Consumers never demand inflationary money; they much prefer stability, or even deflation, so that they can simply put money in a piggy bank and have it retain its value for decades.

And this is Bitcoin, Mom. Designed by hardcore ancaps specifically for that very purpose. Even gold, as a tool for long-term value preservation, works worse, because gold production can be increased in the event of a surge in demand, but you can’t pull that trick with Bitcoin. Well, and if there are cryptocurrencies, then we can boldly get rid of all these central banks, hooray.

Shootouts

Explain that in the wild nineties, the state by no means stopped regulating issues of civilian weapons and establishing rules for resolving conflicts. The police were happy to pressure law-abiding citizens, giving them neither the means to effectively oppose gangsters nor the ability to sue them, but at the same time, they readily backed down before any moderately brazen thug. Naturally, this created a powerful economic incentive for criminal behavior and provided no reward for striving toward a peaceful resolution of issues. In effect, this means that in the nineties, the state worked with all its meager power for the aggressors, until it managed to somehow squeeze the preferential right to banditry away from private aggressors.

Tell me, if you were cornered on the street now with a demand for your wallet, and you pulled a Glock out of your purse and shot the robbers, would you perhaps be praised for riddding society of dangerous criminals? No, you would be charged with illegal possession of a weapon and exceeding the limits of self-defense, and you’d be imprisoned for a long time, eating up taxpayers’ money in jail. And if you don’t shoot, but only frighten them, you’ll be charged just for possessing the weapon, and you’ll still be imprisoned. So why on earth do you need such a “protector”—this very state?

Oh, you don’t want to carry a Glock, you want it so that people don’t attack you? Well, can you go to an insurance company and get insurance against robbery? No. Because companies would only start insuring against that if they had the right to maintain order and effectively oppose gangsters. And that is exactly what is forbidden—state monopoly. No matter where you turn, no matter how you try to secure your life—you run into this or that state prohibition.

And here, Mom, look at this fresh video, about what happens where the state leaves. Or, look, read a whole collection at inliberty about how people leave the state’s umbrella and feel perfectly fine.

In short

You’d better know what is currently in your mother’s head instead of ancap. Act subtly, feed her individual cases, both regarding state lawlessness and (this is much more important!) regarding the effective resolution of vital issues without the state or even despite it. And eventually, she won’t even notice when she starts discussing these things with her neighbors, because people are very fond of secret knowledge unavailable to ordinary mortals—how could she not share it with those ignorant folks?

mom will bring a breath of fresh air

What is the first question or objection most often voiced when you tell people about Ancap?

анонимный вопрос

People are held captive by Hobbes. The idea of a war of all against all, from which the benevolent state saves them, looms over their minds. It is even strange that it hasn’t started being taught in middle school yet. However, propaganda doesn’t necessarily need to delve into the depths of the history of philosophy; it shoves the wicked nineties in people’s faces and tries to convince them: here it is, your ancap—do you like it, do you want it again, you cannibals?

This is precisely what people ask first when they hear that there is not a single service officially provided by the state that could not be provided with higher quality and at a lower cost in a free competitive market. In other words, people say, you want to privatize everything, abolish all social protection, and leave only a wild market flooded with scammers and bandits, with no one left to fight them.

After such an approach, not everyone manages to explain that a new set of nineties is certainly not the goal, nor even an inevitable consequence of the transition to a market, and let’s look at Georgia, for example, which is much closer to current times. Many simply shut down, either because their personal experience of the nineties was too painful, or because they didn’t intend to have a discussion in the first place and simply consider this the most effective thesis against ancap.

Did you miss me?

As for the memes about roads and similar folklore—that is the interest of those who are younger, who didn’t experience the nineties at a conscious age, and for them, ancap is just some abstract internet joke

From HOAs to libertarian communities?

(I would like to ask this question someday to the evangelist of libertarianism for all of Russia, Svetov, but an ordinary person cannot live on Mikhail alone!)

Doesn’t a Homeowners Association (HOA) seem to you as a quite decent, relatively closely related to anarchism in general, socially appealing, and also relatively organizationally easy way to start your own local community?

Atomic Travmay

In general, your logic is completely correct: since ancap is the natural state of society, it manifests most fully precisely in the primary cooperation between people, where state interference is absent or minimal. That is, in HOAs, dacha and garage cooperatives, shadow entrepreneurship, joint procurement organizations, and similar associations. In short, everywhere where people unite voluntarily, are guided by rules they developed themselves, delegate exactly those rights that they themselves possess, and exactly the minimum they deem necessary…

Of course, an HOA is not the most successful example of such an association, as they are more regulated than many others. Nevertheless, HOAs know how to quite effectively resist the state’s encroachments on their autonomy: they choose their own service providers, policies for the use of common property, and so on. It was the HOAs who complained the loudest when mandatory capital repair fees were introduced, and they largely managed to ensure that these fees were not thrown into a general pot but remained in the account of the HOA itself.

The following important step toward strengthening local self-governance suggests itself. The election law allows persons elected by residents’ meetings to be part of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs). Currently, the vast majority of PEC members are employees of municipal infrastructure institutions: schools, kindergartens, and the like. Some are “by place of work.” Some are “from parties.” But de facto, these are all employees of the same collective. Meanwhile, imagine a PEC that includes six apartment buildings, each with an organized HOA, and a representative from each HOA sits on the commission! And another four or five people from parties, as is customary. If such a thing were to start—people would begin electing municipal deputies en masse, and from there, it’s not far to human governors.

In general, my message is this: primary cooperation around one’s own selfish interests is the most reliable and well-trodden path to building a civil society, and whether some piece of the state will manage to be preserved in the process, or if it will be possible to get rid of it entirely—that is already largely a matter of faith.

The market will decide, amen!

Who is in favor of nominating Mikhail Svetov as a member of the PEC from the PRG?

Hi. If only traditional terminology for characterizing political currents (left/right) is used, would it be correct to call libertarianism a socially left and economically right movement?

анонимный вопрос

The question reminded me of the disputes regarding the self-definition of the Libertarian Party of the USA: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. It’s roughly clear what is meant, but it looks like an attempt to assemble the word “eternity” from four known letters.

“Left” and “right” are such vague terms, so easily loaded with an entirely arbitrary agenda, that it’s almost scary to even use them.

Originally, the right wing in the French parliament represented the aristocracy, and now they are associated with Nazis and Christian conservatives; so why use “economically right-wing movement” instead of the correct “movement for economic freedom”? To confuse everyone? Or simply to set themselves in opposition to the economically left?

The socially left advocate not only for the freedom to use psychoactive substances or for the right to abortion, but also, for example, for the criminalization of sex workers’ clients, as well as for gun control. So why call oneself by the vague term “socially left” when you can immediately speak of a movement for personal freedom?

Why, under ancap, will courts follow libertarian principles of law?

анонимный вопрос

Answering this question is not just simple, but very simple. If people only apply to a court voluntarily, and the court has no means of coercing the execution of its decisions—which is precisely the kind of pathetic existence courts might lead under ancap—then courts have no options left but to follow libertarian principles of law.

Alice, based on the principle of self-ownership, voluntarily turned to a court to resolve a conflict with Bob. The court denies Alice self-ownership and issues a verdict stating that she has no right to own any property, so that Bob has the right of exclusive disposal over all disputed property, starting with Alice herself. Bob, in accordance with the court’s decision, appropriates all the property, including Alice, whom he keeps on a leash and beats for any disobedience.


Under ancap, there cannot be a sad girl on a leash!

What will stop Alice from sabotaging the court’s decision and actively resisting Bob, seeking any outside help? What will stop any outsider who, seeing a violation of the NAP, asks what is going on, is told it is the execution of a court decision, and responds that he doesn’t give a fuck?

Since the question itself postulates that it is ancap all around, it means the vast majority of relationships in this society are voluntary and market-based. This is precisely what everyone perceives as the norm, and any deviation from the norm must be hidden or very carefully justified.

One can ask “what would be the typical reaction under ancap to such-and-such a deviation from libertarian principles,” and in response, those typical reactions will be described, demonstrating the feedback mechanisms in an anarcho-capitalist society that make deviating from basic principles unprofitable. But it is pointless to frame the question as “how to fight mass deviations of courts from libertarian principles under ancap?” If they are mass deviations, it is no longer ancap, and one must look into why they are mass and which feedback mechanisms were lacking.

The question of whether a pure anarcho-capitalist society is stable has no theoretical solution today. Societies considered precursors to ancap in legal terms (Ireland, Iceland) were historically defeated by external forces, but this is not an argument for internal instability.

What are the drawbacks of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories?

анонимный вопрос

The main drawback of both libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories is that they do not exist.

There is an economic theory developed by the Austrian school of economics, which took on a relatively cohesive form thanks to Mises. This is praxeology, that is, the theory of human action; catallactics, that is, the theory of exchange; the theory of money, the theory of interventionism, the theory of the business cycle, and so on. The logic of the libertarian doctrine’s presentation is built upon economic theory, and it is used to verify various fantasies regarding the possible structure of society. Austrian economic theory does not provide quantitative forecasts and postulates the fundamental impossibility of doing so, which gives many followers of other schools reason to criticize it for uselessness in this regard.

There is a libertarian legal theory, also known as institutional or sociological. Russian libertarians generally tend to rely on it in their legal constructions, which is not least because it was developed by Vladimir Chetvernin, who is Russian and still alive. In the English-speaking world, natural law theories are more common.

There are various ethical libertarian teachings: some take natural rights as their basis, others derive ethics from the idea of a contract, and some rely on consequentialism—that is, evaluating actions by their consequences. In short, in the field of ethics, libertarians experience considerable fragmentation and instability.

As a result, libertarianism is a rather broad and pluralistic current of thought, which can be seen as both a plus (there is internal discussion, there is development, but there is also agreement on the fundamentals) and a minus (there is no unambiguous opinion on a number of specialized questions, some of which are quite serious—for example, whether an institution such as the state has a right to exist).


Cool little tree, and Chetvernin isn’t even here yet…

Update: after the post was already written, a video with Alexei Tereshchuk was released on SVTV, which deals precisely with similar issues.

And what does libertarianism say about alimony? After cohabitation, a child remains, the “husband” left and does not want to pay alimony?

Roman

Family is a communist cell in an ocean of the free market. Outside, there is private property and commodity-money relations, inside everything is shared, and there are gift relationships. But then one of the members of the communist cell decides to leave it and enter the market. What happens to the property? What happens to the accumulated obligations? Under communism, all of this continues to exist, but in a latent, implicit form.

One partner invests resources into another, expecting that over time there will be some return from the second person. Instead, after some time, the second person decides to leave. Or two people decide to have a child; this is a long-term creative project lasting a couple of decades, constantly consuming resources. And then one of the partners exits the project. Or, even worse, exits the family, but wishes to continue participating specifically in the project of raising the child.

The transition from communism to market relations is always privatization, the fixation of obligations, and a transition from implicit assumptions to clear contracts. The two most typical contracts in a divorce are a property division agreement and an agreement on regular payments to settle accumulated obligations. The latter are the very alimony payments you asked about.

As is easy to see, under a state, the evasion of alimony payments is widespread because those upon whom this obligation is placed consider it unfair. Indeed, it is hard to consider it fair when the lion’s share of the property during division goes to the party who invested fewer resources into its creation, and at the same time, the second party continues to bear financial obligations toward the first.

Now let’s move on to how it would be under ancap.

When I was talking about the future of the institution of marriage under ancap, I briefly touched upon the topic of children. Under ancap, a child to a much greater extent decides for themselves who to live with, who to be friends with, and from whom and what to learn. Thus, regular targeted payments for the maintenance of a child after divorce under ancap are far less likely than now, unless someone agrees to this voluntarily.

So, court-ordered alimony under ancap will be awarded primarily as payment for accumulated obligations, and the child will have nothing to do with it at all. For example, a wife paid for her husband’s landscape design courses, and after the divorce, he reimburses her for the cost of the courses.

The only example of court-ordered alimony related to a child that comes to mind is if a child is conceived at the husband’s initiative, which is documented, and at some late stage of pregnancy he changes his mind. Well, now he will have to pay a penalty “under the gestation contract.”

And what means of coercion for payments exist under ancap? Exactly the same as now: freezing of accounts and seizure of property.