How to conduct an investigation under ancap?

Unlike a modern state, in a libertarian society, it is impermissible to detain suspects, intrude into private life through surveillance, compel testimony through the threat of violence, or forbid perjury. How then is the non-aggression principle to be applied without all these extremely useful tools necessary for an investigation? After all, without them, it is simply impossible to catch anyone, which means that instead of non-aggression, we will face impunity for a violent criminal who was not killed in self-defense.

anonymous question

Not everything is so bleak)

Surveillance

Surveillance and uncovering secrets of private life do not violate the non-aggression principle at all, so under ancap conditions, this direction will face even fewer obstacles than under a state. We should all mentally prepare to live in a condition of a 24/7 stream of everyone and everything in the public domain. It is already almost like this now, and the trend will only develop.

Compelling testimony

As usual, the state’s stick will be replaced by the ancap carrot. Yes, a person has the right not to share information with anyone, but if they are materially interested, the probability of evidence appearing increases. Even now, it is not perceived as something extraordinary when someone interested in an investigation announces a reward for testimony. As for compelling testimony against oneself, this is forbidden even under a state, although we all know how tenderly state representatives treat such prohibitions.

Detention of suspects

The more developed surveillance technologies are, the less need there is to detain a suspect. Simply put, retrospective research through open sources—what the suspect was doing at the moment in question—will finally replace interrogations and confrontations.

Actually, it is strange that this question concerns you so much: we are currently literally watching in real-time the investigation of numerous crimes committed by Russian officials, military personnel, and intelligence officers through open sources. In effect, almost everything here is as it is under ancap: you cannot detain, you cannot compel testimony, but it is quite realistic to study the matter. As for how the transition from investigation to court, or directly to sanctions, occurs under ancap, I have already written multiple times.

But what about the lamp in the face, the handcuffs, the good cop and bad cop? A whole layer of culture will perish!

Survey about social networks

I decided to start a Twitter account, but I want to understand which other publication formats you find convenient. It’s clear that almost all of you came from Telegram, but perhaps some of you would prefer to read fresh posts somewhere else instead.

В каких соцсетях вам наиболее удобно было бы меня читать?
  • Add your answer
Results

Перечислила имеющиеся, можете предлагать и свои варианты

experimental field

Can a libertarian demand respectful behavior toward themselves (not only in communication) by virtue of their age or past merits and achievements? And can someone demanding this be called a libertarian?

anonymous question

I will take advantage of your question to talk a bit about terms.

There is an offer. One subject says to another: let’s make an exchange, I give you A, you give me B. Refusing the offer without violating libertarian principles can become a reason for bargaining (how about B+C?), or for a shrug of the shoulders: well, it’s my business to offer, and your business to refuse.

There is a request. One subject says to another: give me A, if you don’t mind. Refusing to fulfill a request without violating libertarian principles can become a reason to move to an offer (what if I give you B, will you give me A?) or for a shrug of the shoulders: well, if not, then not.

And there is a demand, which is a request with a specified sanction for non-compliance. One subject says to another: give me A, or I will do B to you, and it won’t be pleasant. If no sanction is provided, it is not a demand, but a request. If a sanction is provided but not specified, it is a demand disguised as a request (I do not recommend such a practice, but these are my personal taste preferences).

In principle, one can distinguish another gradation where a demand is accompanied by a preliminary small sanction to prove the seriousness of intentions. Let’s call such a demand, for example, an ultimatum.

From the point of view of libertarian principles, making a demand or, even more so, an ultimatum, is permissible in relation to persons who have caused damage to the claimant. If the damage is material, it is permissible to specify material sanctions in the demand; if the damage is simply an inconvenience, then it is permissible in the demand to specify only the causing of inconvenience as sanctions.

And so we move to the answer to the question. Yes, a libertarian has the right to demand certain conveniences out of respect for age, but they can only threaten the causing of inconvenience for non-compliance.

— Young man, give up your seat for the grandmother!
The young man ignores the demand disguised as a request.
— How ill-mannered today’s youth has become! They jump on the bus and immediately run for a free seat. 
And then the grandmother stands over his soul and grumbles, causing inconvenience.

well-mannered youth

Likewise, a libertarian has the right to demand preferences out of respect for merits, but they can only threaten, for example, with the refusal of further cooperation, thanks to which these merits appeared.

— I have been working for you for five years without any complaints, and every time you put me on New Year’s duty without even asking for my opinion. I don’t care about double pay; I want New Year’s with my family and children. Either you show respect, or I will look for another employer who will show it.

If someone accidentally bumped me with their shoulder or stepped on my foot, and I shot the “aggressor” in response—would I be right from the perspective of the NAP?

anonymous question

For reasons that are unclear to me, in Russian libertarianism, the main emphasis is too often placed on the NAP, and the non-aggression principle is given not so much a legal meaning, but rather an ethical, or even mystical, one. All sorts of bastardized constructions like “I didn’t sign a NAP with you” or “he exited the NAP” stem from this intellectual imbalance. The violation of the NAP becomes a magic trigger that transforms a person from a legal subject into an object of legitimate violence.

As a reminder, the correct formulation of the NAP is “no one has the right to the unpunished initiation of violence.” And this principle is a derivative of the far more fundamental principle of self-ownership, which asserts a person’s inalienable property right to their own body. Violence, therefore, is an infringement on property. This infringement entails legal consequences if the owner so wills it.

The NAP, by asserting the lack of a right to unpunished aggressive violence, says nothing about the measure of punishment. Simply put, you have a property claim against another person: he stepped on your foot. You present this claim to him. In response, he suggests you don’t put your feet wherever you please, meaning he asserts that you created an obstacle for him, preventing him from moving freely across a territory that, for example, belongs to neither of you. By stepping on your foot, he avoided a trip-up that would have caused him property damage. You, in turn, are flabbergasted and suggest he wash his eyes and look where he’s going, meaning you assert that his behavior poses a constant systemic threat to those around him. He responds by saying he fucked your mother and tells you to fuck off. Thus, if one does not take his statement literally, he is asserting that he is ready to use violence against you if you do not stop making claims against him. You respond by telling him he’s out of line, a faggot, and that you will now make him lick your boots with his tongue. In other words, you promise the enforcement of the satisfaction of your property claims, but leave him the opportunity to bargain over the amount of compensation. He responds by promising to shove your boots up your ass, meaning he categorically refuses to satisfy your property claim in any form and expresses readiness to escalate damage in response to your attempt at enforcement. You, in turn, shoot him dead, meaning you apply ultimate economic sanctions against him, rendering his property useless.

Of course, in this case, there might not have been an argument, and you might have applied these economic sanctions immediately, without waiting for the counterparty’s refusal to pay compensation for damages. But to a potential judge, the case looks exactly like this: relatively small damage was caused to you, and in response, you caused significantly greater damage. Consequently, should you be required to make some compensatory payments to someone, should you be expelled from the local community, or should you be thanked for taking out a dangerous asshole who loved to pick on people but was, fortunately, not as skilled with a weapon as you—exactly what decision the court will reach will depend on many circumstances that the court must consider. Your reputation, the reputation of the deceased, community traditions, the compensation requested by the deceased’s friends, the personal moral beliefs of the judge, and possibly a number of other factors will play a role.

And these legal frameworks concerning permissible sanctions for a given property damage are a spontaneous order that will form in a libertarian society, optimally adapting it to the needs of people such that people’s satisfaction in society is maximized and conflicts are minimized. Because that is precisely the function of law—to resolve conflicts. 

What are the main goals that ancap sets for foreign policy? And what will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism?

anonymous question

One could answer briefly by stating that within the framework of ancap, there is no foreign policy, since this term refers to interstate relations, and there are no states under ancap. But let’s expand the answer a bit: of course, I’m not paid by the character, but I simply don’t want to release entirely meager texts in separate posts.

What could be likened to foreign policy for ancap? I suppose, relations with entities that are territorially distant, different in culture, type of economic activity, everyday habits, and perhaps even not entirely ancaps. And what are the main goals ancap sets in such a “foreign policy”? Naturally, to ensure freedom of trade with them.

If I find out that somewhere in the depths of the southeast there is the unforgettable smelly durian fruit, I want to be able to buy it. If not in a supermarket in the next block, then at least to visit the durian myself. The people who grow this curious fruit are needed so that I can try it, and as for what the structure of the commodity-money transactions that reunite me with the durian will be—the market knows best.

What will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism? The same freedom of trade. The famous international festival KaZantip will return there. Girls in bright swimsuits will flock to the Crimean sea, slender speleologists will flock to Crimean caves, tasters saturated with Georgia will flock to Crimean wine cellars, and the long-awaited Dnipro water will return to Crimean fields at market rates.

Beautiful! How could one not visit such a place?

Survey about cryptocurrencies

Какими криптовалютами пользуетесь?
Results

Which is better: a state contract army, or a private one?

anonymous question

As economic theory teaches us, values are subjective. Therefore, the question of “what is better” should always be accompanied by a clarification: better for whom. To avoid writing a long-winded essay, I will proceed from the assumption that “better” should be for the person in whose interests the army fulfills its primary purpose.

In modern international law, private warfare is prohibited, so a private army can primarily operate as a subcontractor for a state army. At least, if we are talking about a classical army using live manpower armed with lethal weapons. Thus, it is clear that a private army is better than a state army for those tasks that the state prefers to outsource. In essence, the only thing a state army would not want to outsource under any circumstances is the embezzlement of budget money. And a state contract army most willingly outsources those tasks that it handles worst: protecting civilians.

Due to the very mechanisms of its funding, a state army acquires quite typical traits, which is why state armies are, to a certain extent, very similar to one another. Private armies perform market tasks in a wide variety of niches, and therefore can differ greatly from each other. In some places, the market needs cheap light infantry capable of dying in droves without stressing the taxpayers, and a conditional Wagner comes to the rescue. In other places, the market needs the protection of communications, and it is helped by slightly more technological guys skilled in communications and logistics. Somewhere, it is necessary to wage cyberwarfare, and a private troll factory is opened for this task. Somewhere, the market needs intelligence data for publication, and a company like Bellingcat appears.

You might ask, what do the last two cases have to do with war? With equal success, one could ask what Shahed explosions have to do with war. By the way, these are also an excellent example of private armies: they are inexpensive and work effectively. It’s just that their task is rather specific: supporting the advertising campaign of a terror sponsor.

Alright, so for which tasks, other than budget embezzlement, are state contract armies actually more effective than private ones? Paradoxically, despite their complete inefficiency in protecting non-combatants, state contract armies are more effective at creating a sense of security for the citizens of the country to which the state contract army belongs. This is precisely what allows them to be so effective at embezzling the budget, since the taxpayer agrees in advance to the high cost of the army, as long as there is no war.

Happy birthday to Grandpa Ludwig!

You have probably already been congratulated from all sides on Ludwig von Mises’ birthday. And although he is that guy it’s useless to ask “how would so-and-so look under ancap?”, since he angrily denied anarchism, nevertheless, his merits in the field of economic theory are indisputable, and my respect for him is boundless.

So I gladly join the swarm of congratulations. Market to everyone!

Looks to the right – starts Laissez-faire,
Looks to the left – speaks of the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism

After a person’s death, whose property does their corpse become?

anonymous question

Thank you for the interesting question. Indeed, a corpse is a rather peculiar object of property.

At first glance, everything is simple. A person has property rights to their own body; therefore, it is up to them to specify into whose ownership their corpse will pass, or to give paid instructions as to who should perform which specific manipulations with the corpse. If a contract for these manipulations is concluded, the contractors are obliged to perform them. If no instructions regarding the ownership of the corpse have been given, the corpse may be claimed by the first person to express such a desire.

However, in practice, procedural difficulties arise. I will simply list a few of them to illustrate why the theoretical model might fail.

First, a corpse may appear in a closed room belonging to the former owner of the corpse. A person fell asleep in their home and did not wake up. In order to understand that the owner of the house has died, one must enter the house, but as long as there is no certainty that the owner of the house has changed due to the death of the previous owner, entering the house will be considered a violation of the owner’s property rights. The more property rights are respected, the lower the probability of discovering the corpse. In an ideal situation, where respect for property rights is infinitely great, the fact of death will never be established, and the corpse will never pass into anyone’s ownership, continuing to be erroneously recognized as the property of the deceased.

Second, claiming an ownerless corpse may be fraught with claims from those who might assume the claimer’s involvement in the fact of death itself. For example, if someone is sitting peacefully on a riverbank and suddenly sees the corpse of their enemy floating by, it may be in their interest not to claim the corpse, but to let it float peacefully away, which, of course, would spoil their pleasure.

Third, even if the person who found the corpse is obviously uninvolved in its appearance, difficulties still arise in determining the current status of the object. The corpse may already be the property of an heir, since the deceased gave a corresponding instruction in advance. This means that before claiming the corpse, a subject who respects property rights will be forced to take steps to determine the identity of the deceased and their instructions in case of death.

Also, upon discovery of a corpse, it is quite reasonable to assume that the deceased’s friends have already begun searching for them, and if the cause of death was violence, they may be interested in finding the culprit; even if they have no rights to the corpse, they may approach the finder with a request to provide the corpse for an autopsy and similar manipulations.

In short, it is not hard to guess that all these subtleties make a corpse as a commodity quite illiquid and needed by few. Therefore, the question of “who owns the corpse” will more likely arise in the context of reflections on “how to get rid of a found corpse,” rather than “how best to use it for household purposes.” Thus, even in a situation where it is god knows whose corpse it is and it’s unclear if anyone will look for it, the decision to bury it and remember the burial site will be entirely justified and, most likely, less risky than feeding it to pigs. Or one could simply hand it over to a morgue, if we are talking about a civilized area (as it is easy to see from the reasoning provided, the demand for morgues under ancap will not disappear).

Well

How would emergency medical care be provided under ancap? After all, checking for the presence of insurance takes some time, and if a person is unconscious and in critical condition, that time is not available. On the other hand, he would not be obliged to pay for the care, since he did not agree to it.

anonymous question

A person who has not left resource-backed instructions on how to act in the event of their sudden incapacity risks that the actions they would have wanted will not be taken, even if the technical possibility to do so exists.

At the same time, in addition to the service delivery model based on the “use the service, then pay the bill” principle, humanity actively practices another approach: “provide the service, then receive gratitude.” I answer your questions, you send me donations. If you stop doing this, I will not stop answering questions. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that emergency aid will not be paid for in one way or another—if not by the rescued person themselves, then at least by grateful city residents, for whom it is always much more pleasant and easier to reward moral acts than to punish immoral ones.

Yes, it may turn out that the person in need of help has a bad reputation, or that providing help is too costly, or a thousand and one other circumstances that ultimately leave them without that very help. But even then, this story will not be in vain: people will feel awkward that such things happen on their territory, which is a serious incentive to prevent a recurrence and to drop a few satoshis into the city emergency fund.

After all, when you let an ambulance pass on the road, you are also donating—even if it’s just a small amount of your convenience, but you do it voluntarily and willingly, right?