What’s the deal with Esperanto? Is it worth learning?

Ildar

Language is one of the most vivid examples of spontaneous order arising in society. People have a desire to understand one another, and they use various available means for this purpose; in most cases, this turns out to be the voice, although gestures and facial expressions also retain an important role. The convenience of transmitting information by voice is quite great, and this successful practice becomes embedded in culture, turning into a full-fledged language and gradually being refined: vocabulary tends toward complexity, and syntax toward simplification.

In every sufficiently isolated population of people, its own language develops. You can see this in miniature even in your own family, where there are likely many idioms for internal use that are not used in the outside world. At the same time, as globalization progresses, a reverse trend emerges—toward the unification of language, for now there is a need to understand not only the nearest neighbors but also those with whom contacts occur quite episodically, and there has been no long period of adjustment to develop a communication protocol.

Esperanto is an artificially created language intended precisely to fulfill this task: to facilitate mutual understanding in a global world with minimal common costs for language learning. The fate of Esperanto unfolded roughly as the fate of Bitcoin might have if it had appeared in a world with a gold standard. Yes, Bitcoin is more convenient for transfers than gold, but where is its gold backing? Why are another set of decentralized funds, independent of a trusted intermediary, needed if gold already exists and is actively used? The same goes for Esperanto: yes, one can learn it and become one of hundreds of thousands of speakers, but English is just as widespread worldwide, and it has billions of speakers, for hundreds of millions of whom it is their native language.

So the idea is certainly clever and deserves great respect, but by natural order, people did not follow this idea. However, there is certainly a point in learning Esperanto—some people, for instance, learn Sindarin, and there are surely more speakers of that artificial language in the world than of, say, Vepsian. This means someone needs it.

Of course, forcing humanity to communicate in Esperanto is a solvable task. After all, there are precedents in the world where the Irish artificially recreated their Gaelic and the Jews recreated Hebrew. But the costs for those who would be forced to do so would be very high, and I would prefer that society avoid such a violation of spontaneous orders—there is no need for it, as the natural convergence of languages and the development of machine translation will handle the task much more simply.

1908-kl-t-zamenhof.jpg
L. L. Zamenhof, creator of Esperanto

Hey, Ancap-chan. Can you explain step-by-step and in detail how the judicial system will work in the wonderful Ancapistan? And how will private prisons make a profit?

anonymous question

In addition to this post, I also recommend reading all posts tagged “court,” at least this one and this one.

To start, let me roll out a bunch of definitions related to your question. Often, providing clear definitions is enough, and the answer to the question becomes completely obvious.

  • Property  – the relationship of an object to a subject, within which the subject disposes of the object at their discretion, and other subjects refrain from similar actions without the owner’s sanction.
  • Ancap – a system of relations between people based on the principle of self-ownership, that is, ownership of oneself. In common parlance, we will also call an “ancap” a person who is ready to adhere to this system of relations.
  • Law – a complex of practices for resolving conflicts between people.
  • Court – a legal institution within which a conflict between parties is resolved by a third party. Under ancap, a court can resolve conflicts only within the scope of the authority delegated to it by the parties to the conflict.
  • Prison – a legal institution within which the party that caused damage is isolated from the party that suffered damage. Under ancap, isolation can occur only with the sanction of the isolated party and only on terms agreed upon with them.

Now let’s provide a few examples of how law works in Ancapistan.

  1. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. They have stated their claims to each other, and after discussion, they agreed on who gets the disputed object, and who, for example, in exchange for waiving their claims, receives an agreed-upon compensation. The conflict is resolved.
  2. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. They have stated their claims to each other but have not reached an agreement. Then they agree with a third party in one way or another and delegate to them the authority to resolve the conflict. The court examines the situation, issues a decision, and the parties to the conflict execute the decision. The conflict is resolved.
  3. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. In an attempt to exercise their property rights over the disputed object, the parties begin to cause each other some damage. Not wanting the conflict to escalate, one of the parties finds a shelter where they are out of reach of the second party, and after this, the parties begin to negotiate about a court. The court examines the situation, issues a decision, and the parties to the conflict execute the decision. The conflict is resolved.

The shelter appearing in the third example is, in essence, a prison. For the service of providing security during the period of imprisonment, the prison owner may charge a fee from the client, that is, from the person who wishes to obtain shelter.

I do not think that under ancap, the service of imprisonment will be in such high demand that it would be profitable to build special, well-protected structures to provide it. Most likely, the service of providing shelter will be provided decentrally and will be more declarative in nature.

A guy is running down the street, all disheveled and bruised, and another guy is behind him, very agitated and wanting to bruise the first one even more. The first guy rushes to me and asks for help. I shield him from the second one and suggest that he move toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. I have isolated one participant of the conflict from the other, and, in essence, this is no different from putting him in a pretrial detention center. The only thing that prevents the strong side in this conflict from continuing the crackdown on the weak side is the unwillingness to enter into a conflict with me as well. In the vast majority of situations, this is quite enough.

Will I take money for the service provided? I don’t know, it depends on the circumstances, depending on how much it distracts me from my own affairs.

In describing this example, I proceeded from the implicit assumption that ancap developed in a peaceful society through the gradual withering away of the state, which is why the described conflict, within which the need for shelter arose, looks quite “vegetarian.” Of course, if some Venezuela arrives at ancap through the complete and rapid bankruptcy of the state, then conflicts between people in the first stage will be significantly more numerous, and there may indeed arise a sufficiently stable, solvent demand for solid fortified shelters where the client would be provided with armed security services. But the probability of such a scenario seems very small to me.

Explain the difference between common law and civil law jurisdictions?

anonymous question

This is roughly like asking what the difference is between equality and a jury trial. The first is a principle. The second is an institution. Between them is a cause-and-effect relationship.

NAP is the non-aggression principle, stating that no one has the right to use aggressive violence with impunity. Contractual jurisdictions are an institution for conflict resolution based on adherence to the NAP.

The point of contractual jurisdictions is that one subject enters into an agreement with another subject stating that they are subject to their jurisdiction. The agreement also specifies what limitations this jurisdiction has.
The existence of a contract between the court and the subject is a mandatory condition that ensures compliance with the NAP, since under the contract, the subject agrees to execute the court’s decision or agrees that they will be forced to execute it. Without such prior consent, an attempt to force a convicted person to execute a court decision becomes a violation of the non-aggression principle.

The most elementary example of a contractual jurisdiction is an arbitration court. Two parties to a conflict enter into a contract with a court to resolve one specific conflict, pledging to execute the court’s decision regardless of what it may be. An arbitration court provides the highest possible degree of fairness in conflict resolution, but is poorly suited for cases of extreme bitterness between parties, as well as situations where the parties are barely acquainted and simply cannot find a single person whom both parties trust.

In cases where a pure arbitration court is difficult, intermediaries begin to step in. I entrust the settlement of my conflict to someone I have chosen as my representative, and after some effort, they provide me with a result: here the opponent is ready to make such-and-such a concession, here it makes sense for me to make a concession, I can also count on such-and-such compensation, but I must pay such-and-such for the mediation. I agree to this, and a settlement occurs. Or I disagree and negotiations continue.

The more stable a society is, the more likely it is that such mediation contracts will become more long-term and the results of their activity more predictable. People generally love to generalize and average things out to save effort and not worry about minor details.
Thus arises what is usually meant by the words “contractual jurisdictions,” although this is only a specific case of them: a system in which practically everyone is bound by a permanent contract with one jurisdiction or another, and it is that jurisdiction that handles all their conflicts, whether they bring claims against others or others bring claims against them. A contractual jurisdiction can be freely changed, but this will likely happen no more often than people change mobile operators today.

To a certain approximation, such a judicial system existed in Iceland during the Age of Sagas, that is, in the period of the absence of a state, when jurisdiction, along with priestly functions, was carried out by the so-called godi, and a landowner could enter one godord or another or move to a different one.

For the geeks, I can even provide a link with a description of this legal system.

Modern Icelandic godi are more like role-playing games, but imitation institutions sometimes wake up

How will treatment protocols be developed under ancap? Today, the WHO does this, and then the state implements these recommendations. But without a state?

Semyon Podporin

Even today, there is a more or less market-based competition between various treatment methodologies in the world. There is the WHO, with its ICD and list of essential medicines. There are numerous schools of traditional medicine that find their followers, often even on an international level. There is homeopathy and all sorts of other extrasensory practices. There are fasting and prayers. There are several families of therapeutic gymnastics.

Thus, even when competing with international bureaucracy, the medical market is quite flexible and provides services for every taste and budget. There are no grounds for it to be any different under ancap. Yes, it will be easier to introduce various “placebo-drugs” to the market. On the other hand, there will be no imposition of such drugs at the state level, as was the case with something like Arbidol.

Yes, humanity will not have a single list of diseases and drugs, but developing new medications will definitely become easier. Yes, there will be more various placebos on the market, but funding for the Cochrane Collaboration will likely grow, as will its authority.
Many also fear the curtailment of research into new drugs due to the demise of patent law, but that is a completely different question, which, moreover, I have already partially answered.

fully decentralized self-governing self-funding association – the market solves the problem of placebo-drugs

Roads

Well, just as I relaxed and decided that there wouldn’t be a question again today, a question was asked after all. But it’s too late—I’ve already relaxed. So I’ll answer a bit later, but for now, I’ll share a silly joke I overheard today:

— Who built this road?
— Oh, it’s a mystery shrouded in an asphalt-cap!

Indefinite Protest, Part 2

The main problem with this type of campaign is that it usually doesn’t articulate what goal is intended to be achieved, what means should be used, what means must under no circumstances be used, and how the available means can be used to achieve the stated goal.

What follows are purely theoretical reflections on what kind of long-term campaign could be effective.

  1. Several goals of different scales are set, the implementation of which is possible simultaneously or quite quickly. For example, the goal “resignation of the government” passes the criterion, while “abolishing corruption in Russia” does not. The simplest and most achievable goal is published, and it is announced that its achievement is the condition for ending the campaign. If the goal is not achieved, but the campaign has gained sufficient momentum in the opinion of the organizers, the next goal is published; thus, as the number of participants in the campaign grows, the stakes are raised, and this increases the probability that after some time the authorities will agree to fulfill a demand that was stated among the first, even though the protesters’ demands have since moved far forward.
  2. The means that will be used by the protesters and the means that will not be used are determined. For example, it is stated that roads will be blocked, entrances to government institutions will be blocked, government request-reception services will be DDoS-ed, leaflets will be pasted, graffiti will be drawn, and other non-violent actions relatively safe for those performing them will be carried out. It is also stipulated that protest participants will avoid at all costs: direct clashes with the police, destruction of private property, and violence against citizens. If someone practices such things, they are a provocateur and have nothing to do with the protest; we will not hand them over to the police, of course, but we will try to discourage them.
  3. An open invitation is published for those wishing to join the protest in other cities—with their own goals, but with a commonality of methods. Thus, in one city, one can start with demands for the immediate termination of administrative cases regarding the September 9 rally, while in another, one can immediately demand that United Russia deputies officially representing that region in the Duma vote against the pension reform bill in the second reading. It is important that in each city, the demand relates specifically to things that can be done in that particular city. Even if a deputy lives in France but was elected from here—demanding a press conference in the district from which he was elected, with a promise to vote against the reform, is a completely feasible thing for the residents of that city.
  4. Unlike rallies, in such campaigns there is no point in complying with government requirements regarding de-anonymization—on the contrary, any means of disguise are quite appropriate, as long as they do not hinder escaping from the police. It is important for every participant in such campaigns to be able to join at any moment and leave at any moment without risking anything. The whole point of such methods is to bear minimal costs themselves, but force the state to bear disproportionately larger costs.
  5. But, besides those who will disrupt state activities on the streets, respectable politicians are also needed who, without personally making any hint of anything illegal, will publicly grumble: look, this is what you’ve brought these miserable people to; you’re lucky their protest is completely peaceful, don’t push them to sin, make concessions, and then the people will calm down, do you really want it to be like in Ukraine? The work of such people is also extremely important; there is no need to label them as collaborators and the like—they help the authorities find a justification for themselves to make an unusual effort and bend to society.
  6. And after the success of the campaign, it would not hurt to loudly announce the victory, enter a memorable date into the annals, and celebrate it regularly, with a clear message: we can do it again.
we are in misery, but in Yerevan it’s a holiday

Indefinite protest

Today you have given me a day off again, so I will reflect a bit on the indefinite protest that was announced by the participants of the rallies on September 9 in Moscow, and then in several other cities.

What surprises the protesters most is that all opposition organizations are shyly avoiding it; not only do they fail to join, but they prefer not to mention it at all, and in some places, they even ban mentions of it on their resources. How can this be? I will try to figure it out.

This indefinite protest is not the first, and all previous ones ended ingloriously. There was the Occupy Abay, there was the siege of the Christmas tree ornament in New Year’s Moscow, there was Manezhka in October of last year. Each time, the police dispersed these indefinite actions without much effort as soon as they felt their time had come. Therefore, the leaders of the organized non-systemic opposition, who themselves actively participated in previous actions in their time, are now in no hurry to repeat this disgrace and are discouraging others.

In other words, the general opinion today is that a protest action should be populous rather than prolonged, and space over time does not convert. It would seem that populous actions also do not lead to the government resigning or canceling its unpopular decisions, so on what basis should rallies be more preferable than occupations? I can perhaps name two arguments.

  1. After rallies, more young blood flows into the organized non-systemic protest than after occupations — simply by virtue of that very populousness.
  2. Rallies provide a more vivid picture, and therefore garner more views, which again helps them ensure a greater public resonance.

Thus, at the stage of accumulating strength, rallies are a more effective means of maintaining morale and replenishing the ranks, while at the stage immediately preceding the fall of a regime, rallies are certainly insufficient — this stage is precisely accompanied in the modern practice of peaceful revolutions by multi-day protests.

At the same time, one can never know for sure in advance whether the time has come for an occupation, or whether it is more profitable for now to keep a low profile and only occasionally remind people of one’s existence through rallies. For the start of the Maidan, one small, harshly dispersed rally was enough. In Yerevan, the indefinite protest began immediately, without any rallies; it was initially very small but continued to grow until the change of the prime minister. So, it can turn out in different ways.

That is exactly why one should not discourage people from participating in any peaceful protest, even if you are sure that right now, and in exactly this form, it is a complete profanation. What if it turns out that you were wrong, and the time has actually come.

It is far more important to constantly consider for yourself how the existing protest could be supplemented to make it more effective. This supplement does not have to be expressed in joining the action, as one can work on other fronts, as long as the desired result becomes closer.

Well, I will talk about that next time, provided, of course, that you don’t pelt me right now with questions on other topics.

Pushkinskaya Square, Moscow, September 9, night

On participation in elections

Last Sunday was marked not only by nationwide protests, but also, imagine that, by elections. I would like to talk a bit about why ancaps should pay any attention to elections at all.

Of course, the idea that someone who has defeated their opponents as a result of a complex, multi-stage electoral procedure now has the power to dispose of all the inhabitants of the mandated territory within the powers specified by the office, plus bonuses for audacity, and that this is as indisputable as the requirements of a voluntarily signed contract—does not withstand criticism. Volumes have been written about this; let us not dwell on this banality.

But do you really think that under ancap there is no place for the very phenomenon of procedural legitimation when determining who will exercise leadership?

Democracy is a set of tools for making compromise decisions in collectives. Under ancap, only a fundamental requirement is added: that decisions concern only issues of the management of collective property, but not the private property of the collective’s members. Given this limitation, democratic procedures are quite acceptable, and they indeed contribute to the minimization of conflicts.

Therefore, participation in the state-organized master class on conducting electoral procedures is quite useful. For now, for educational purposes, it does not matter exactly how hypothetical candidates Ivanov and Petrov got onto the ballot, how Sidorov was barred from the elections, or how Popov was removed on the last day. What matters is that the precinct commission properly crossed candidate Popov off the ballot, that every ballot bore a stamp and the signatures of two precinct commission members, that no campaigning was conducted near the precinct, that no pressure was put on the voter at the precinct, that the secrecy of the vote was maintained, that the counting of votes was carried out strictly according to procedure, that the control totals matched, and that the copies of the protocols issued to observers matched the official results for the precinct—all this boring “kitchen” work, where every single point matters.

Can you solve such simple educational problems? Then it will be easier to handle the organization of voting at a shareholders’ meeting, or a homeowners’ association, or the programming of consensus algorithms when creating a new cryptocurrency. Or you can try to make the problems more complex—and strive for the purity of electoral procedures not only on election day, but throughout the entire election campaign. And then, perhaps, it will lead to the practical implementation of a democratic model within the state—meaning not only an electoral model, but the entire system of checks and balances that ensures the adoption and implementation of compromise decisions in large collectives while minimizing violent coercion.

So do not neglect elections, even if there is no practical benefit from the results of the voting at the moment. This is the development of skills as useful as the ability to handle a weapon. Just come to the precincts to, so to speak, practice.

a mass-market scale model of democracy, nothing sacred

And how will it be with selling heroin to children under ancap? It won’t be possible to ban it. As I understand it, it’s the reputation institute. An asshole sells heroin to children, fewer and fewer people will turn to him, and in the end, he will have to change his trading policy or close down. Do I understand correctly?

anonymous question

It’s even more interesting. Not only will it be impossible to ban it, but the institution of reputation will also fail to work.

Judge for yourself: you have two businesses, both bring in money, but those who find out that you have one business refuse to do business with you in your second business for some of their own ethical reasons. For example, you have a vegan restaurant and a steakhouse, and the vegans have stopped liking you, accusing you of hypocrisy. The meat-eaters generally don’t care what you sell to the vegans. What do you do? You simply hide the existence of the steakhouse and remain a respectable owner of a vegan restaurant in the eyes of society. And the steakhouse is owned by a “front man.”

The exact same thing happens with selling drugs to children and adults. If one business interferes with another, it is simply separated so that you are not associated with it. Moreover, if it turns out that parents forbid children from buying your heroin with their pocket money, you can always switch to the “dead drop” scheme, which works perfectly today under conditions of a total government ban on the circulation of psychoactive substances.

In other words: the stick method does not work, no matter how you try to optimize it.

We cannot predict in detail what the structure of supply and demand will be in a free market, but if a certain product, despite all its positive qualities, has a lot of various unpleasant side effects, then a demand arises for the same thing, but without the side effects. Once the desired substance can be obtained at a comparable price, the old one will have to leave the market. I think this is precisely the fate that awaits heroin in the end, and after that, it will no longer matter whether what replaces it is sold to children or adults — it will be something as socially acceptable as, for example, ice cream.

But for market forces to work successfully in the desired direction, they must not be hindered by various absurd bans. Because right now, in the field of psychoactive substances, not only distribution but also research is illegal.

And finally, I would like to note that with full deregulation of the industry, the problem of the spread of harmful habits among vulnerable categories of the population will be completely insignificant, even without any significant innovations. I suggest looking at Portugal’s experience with the decriminalization of drugs. It had many positive consequences, including a sharp decline in adolescent drug addiction that continues to this day. So, I appreciate your concern for children, but really, there would be nothing to worry about in this case.

decriminalization of ice cream