What will happen to the institution of marriage under ancap?

anonymous question

I can answer in one word: deregulation. But that is obvious to everyone, because deregulation awaits all institutions under ancap, so let’s fantasize about where it will lead and what forms the institution of marriage might take.

What functions of marriage do we have today?

  1. Marriage is a subscription to sex. Since humans are generally inclined to save effort, this function of marriage will be preserved under ancap, regardless of how much ideological polyamorists dream otherwise. But a subscription, of course, will not imply exclusivity by default, just as it already does not. The word “infidelity” will finally become a thing of the past, alongside other archaic terms like “sacrilege” or “vendetta”.
  2. Marriage is a form of organizing a household. Here, as people become wealthier, this function will increasingly wither away. Roughly speaking, the norm will be an autonomous household, with the possibility of visiting a partner from time to time or organizing a joint tour. Housekeeping itself will become even more automated, and whatever automation does not handle will be perfectly executed by specialized companies, like modern cleaning services.
  3. Marriage is a form of friendship. The continuing improvement of communication channels will make framing friendship as marriage less and less relevant. People easily meet and grow close without such a status, regardless of gender, age, and increasingly even social standing. Ancap will only exacerbate this trend.
  4. Marriage is a cooperative for raising children. To the same extent that the model of marriage as a form of friendship blurs under ancap, the model of marriage as an institution for upbringing will also blur. A child will have a much greater degree of freedom, including in the choice of friends, guardians, and teachers.
  5. Marriage is a form of legal entity. In the absence of a state that provides the right of legal representation without a power of attorney only to family members, this model will also blur. People will formalize situational relationships of mutual trust using simple and cheap mechanisms, for example, based on blockchain. In the absence of such formalization, a counterparty will be forced to act regarding someone’s acquaintances at their own risk. However, the aforementioned development of communication will allow one to easily obtain all necessary confirmations if necessary.

So. It is quite likely that the form of marriage we know today as traditional will be preserved under ancap as a kind of archaism, however, the role of the institution will be noticeably reduced and replaced by clearer and more specific contractual relations between people.

institutions decay, people remain

Libertarian Podcasts

I want to recommend a channel that will be useful to anyone interested only in the audio tracks of various near-libertarian videos available on the internet. It’s very convenient: you’re walking down the street, phone in your pocket, listening to some fresh Shulman in your headphones who appeared on YouTube just a couple of hours ago, and she’s already been ported as audio to Telegram.

I promised you that there would be no promotional posts here. So, to clarify: we are agreeing with the owner of the channel that his audio library will also migrate to my website. The Telegram channels will remain separate. I hope that over time, I will be able to build a small, cozy Ancapistan around myself)

Start your acquaintance with the channel with a couple of programs about lustration. You love lustrations, don’t you?

Can a person who jumps on the heads of people adhering to (also) other ideologies, but who do not impose them on anyone and do not violate the NAP, call themselves a libertarian?

anonymous question

I think that if you meant the literal meaning of the expression “jumping on heads,” the answer would be banal: this is violence that is not a response to a violation of the NAP, therefore the person who jumped on the head has no right to remain unpunished, and their behavior certainly does not correspond to libertarian principles at this moment.

Also, I think it’s clear that you aren’t actually asking whether a person can call themselves something. A person can call themselves whatever they want; that’s what freedom of speech is for.

So I will answer the question in the following formulation:

Should one trust a person’s claim that they are a libertarian if it is known that they exhibit non-violent aggression toward those who hold (also) other ideologies, but who do not impose them on anyone and do not violate the NAP?

Alas, however tempting it may be to deny any asshole the proud title of libertarian, it must be admitted: a libertarian can be an asshole. Due to personal dislike, they may non-violently cause you any unpleasant experiences, and even provoke you into violence, but they are within their rights, and this is a completely conventional libertarian way of behaving in a conflict. Applying retaliatory non-violent sanctions to them—be my guest. Spitting in their face—that’s bordering on a foul. Lunging with a knife—be prepared for the fact that both they and everyone present will be able to unpunishedly apply any violence to you to prevent your actions.

And as for which ideology you peacefully adhere to—it doesn’t matter at all—even if it’s socialist.

– You have black-and-white thinking!
– No, you do!

Hi! Please tell me more about Balashov and 5.10—it’s not every day that libertarians in Ukraine nominate their own candidate for president.

Vadim Adamov

People come to libertarianism in different ways.

Many come from academic circles. They are attracted by the logic of this economic and legal doctrine. As a rule, they remain theorists.

Some come from systemic politics. At first, they followed the well-trodden paths, joining mainstream parties, then realized their hearts were not in the proposed methods and migrated toward a more liberty-loving current.

But the smartest, most consistent, and unfortunately, most rarely encountered public libertarians are those who are the most obvious beneficiaries of the wide penetration of libertarian ideology. Entrepreneurs.

Balashov joined our ranks precisely from these circles. After studying as an economist in the Soviet Union, in the late eighties he opened a consignment shop in a shopping center in a corner under the stairs, and a few years later he owned several shopping centers in the underground passages of Dnepropetrovsk. Then came the move to Kyiv, entry into public politics, and one term as a deputy in the Rada. Then social networks, radio shows, in general, a certain level of promotion.

For quite a long time, Gennady was engaged in trying to teach his listeners and readers the philosophy of entrepreneurship and was something like a Ukrainian Potapenko. But, unlike the latter, he clearly gravitated toward something more than a career as a guru, so he constantly tried to impose his agenda on society using political methods as well.

Since 2012, he has headed the 5.10 movement. These two numbers contain the core of his economic program: leave only two taxes in Ukraine: 5% on sales, 10% on wages. In 2014, on the wave of the Maidan, at the head of an initiative group, he simply burst into the office responsible for registering parties in Ukraine, and since then the movement has officially become a party—if only we could do that)))

After founding the party, Gennady seemingly began to actively study theory, and after some time discovered libertarianism; at least, this word began to sound in his speeches around 2015 or 2016, and more and more frequently as time went on. He used to call Bitcoin a financial pyramid and the sale of air, then, again, after being confronted with theory, he changed his opinion and became a distinguished Bitcoin evangelist, thereby demonstrating a sanity that other economists from the same Navalny team cannot boast of.

He is quite skeptical of anarcho-capitalists, but considering that he primarily interacted with internet trolls from that crowd, it is hardly surprising. However, at the moment, it is indeed better for him not to be distracted by all those celestial empyreans—since he has run for president, being a minarchist is optimal.

Acknowledgements psto

Three days ago, I received an unexpectedly large donation, which covered all previous expenses and provided a good foundation for the future. I don’t count the time spent, of course, as answering your questions is a pleasure for me.

Thank you, whoever you are! Now I’m sitting here in deep thought: how should I spend the money to achieve the maximum effect.

I really want to do something pleasant for the donor. And also to extend this practice for the future—for example, depending on the size of the donation, offering something as a keepsake. Going back to thinking.

when one can dream specifically…

What’s up with the khokhols?

On September 19, Ukrainian politician Gennady Balashov, leader of the 5.10 party, officially announced that he intends to run for president of Ukraine. In the five days since then, he has managed to collect about 200 thousand hryvnias, which is 10% of the electoral deposit required to run for president. An inspiring start.

The program of the 5.10 party implies a drastic reduction in taxes, deregulation, the reduction of the state by entire ministries, and so on—practically a full minarchist set. So, during the campaign, libertarianism will finally be discussed loudly in Russian on television, and this will allow us to test the waters to see how such ideas resonate with the broad layers of the population who are not used to gathering information from the internet.

Politics in modern Ukraine is competitive enough, so a refusal at the registration stage is unlikely—provided there is enough money. As for Russians, for now, instead of a libertarian presidential candidate, they will have to settle for Navalny. Not the worst choice, but Balashov is much closer to us.

https://youtu.be/bVjX0nOglYs
Wanna bet he’ll get more than Gary Johnson?

Hello, what do you think about the second part of the TrashSmash video about how civilians should not be given weapons, and that arguments for the legalization of weapons are pointless?

anonymous question

In the second part of his hoplophobic video, TrashSmash actually managed to say one smart phrase, I quote:

The only remaining convincing argument for easing access to weapons is personal freedom.

43:09-43:15

For a libertarian, this argument indeed outweighs any others. The right to own property, the right to use it for self-defense, sports, hunting, collecting, and other peaceful activities—these are above any statistical data and other appeals to public benefit.

Therefore, instead of digging into the depths of fragmented data collected through dubious methodologies for manipulative purposes at the expense of taxes, and using it to argue with another apologist for the disarmament of citizens, simply seduce them.

Just don’t take them hunting with drunken old-timers; it’s better to take them to a shooting range, let them listen to the safety briefing, fire a few dozen rounds, and hear “Thank you for safe shooting, come again” at the end. And once their fears subside, you can congratulate yourself: there is one less hoplophobe in the world.

It brings people so close!

And what do you think?

Как правильнее либертарианцам вести оружейную политику в современной России?
Results

Website Authorization

Каких ещё способов авторизации на сайте вам хочется?
  • Add your answer
Results

It’s good when friends are nearby!

Famous vlogger TrashSmash released a long and pompous video about how bad state militarism is, and how we should all disarm before it in the name of peace, ridding ourselves of civilian weapons and testosterone.

The weapons faction of the LPR responded to this with a double-barreled blast: Alexei Ovsienko with a text on Facebook, and Vladimir Popov with a video breakdown of the clip. As for me, I’ll just post a thematic picture from the channel of one cool Chelyabinsk girl.

Added some interactivity

I want to get some idea about you, so I decided to add a surveys section to the site. I will store all the surveys that ever appear on the site there, while new ones will always be published as separate posts.

To start with, here are a couple for you.

The first survey places you on the political compass as seen by libertarians

Ваша идеологическая ориентация
Results

The second survey concerns the methods of building ancap, briefly discussed in the post about ancap and minarchism.

Какой метод построения анкапа видится вам более перспективным?
  • Add your answer
Results