When it comes to violence, only physical violence is mentioned. But various methods of psychological violence can cause physiological problems with the CNS, with the brain. If one arranges constant quarrels, doesn’t let [someone] sleep, and other “breathing into the tube.” One could say that “one can leave this,” just as one can hire security.

anonymous question

When the actions of one person cause damage suffered by another, and the evidence of damage and its assessment can be demonstrated, this is sufficient to demand compensation for damages, and it is completely irrelevant whether physical violence specifically took place.

It is another matter that damage resulting from non-violent actions is much harder to prove, which is why an external arbitrator may deny compensation for damages in such cases. This is precisely why, in the case of psychological violence, a more successful response tactic may be not a lawsuit, but, for example, retaliatory psychological violence.

Of course, when a victim of psychological violence receives such recommendations, they have reason to despair.
What can be said here? Just as it is very useful to possess a weapon and know how to use it for direct protection against physical violence—and only after successful self-defense to file lawsuits against those who survived—so too, for direct protection against psychological violence, it is useful to train the psyche and know how to use psychological weapons—and only after successful self-defense to engage in ruining the reputation of the unsuccessful abuser, if they haven’t already put their head in a noose.

Back to the question of global warming: the point is not that the climate will change, but rather what will follow: the disruption of climate cycles, the disruption of ecological stability, etc., etc. All of this will undoubtedly affect the agro-sector, plus the growing population. What is to be done about this?

anonymous question, addition to the previous answer

If a certain community agrees on what climate is optimal for it and has the means to establish these conditions, its representative simply takes the climate control remote and sets the required parameters. If there are no means to establish an arbitrary climate, people either migrate to more acceptable climatic conditions or adapt to the existing ones. If there are means but no agreement, then whoever holds the remote will, one way or another, set parameters that satisfy some and dissatisfy others.

To study the causes and effects of climate change, one can ask: a) who influenced the changes that occurred and to what extent; b) who suffered what damage as a result. But in fact, a different question is of interest: is it possible to organize joint activity so that the degradation of the established system of consumption of goods does not occur, and if so, how.

The current level of human development allows for direct steering of the climate approximately at the regional level: creating a large reservoir, for example, or, conversely, dividing a river into irrigation ditches. Which approaches to organizing the operation of common resources work more or less in the interests of the operators is analyzed in a book that I have already recommended: Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons”.

If it is not possible to design a scheme for the operation of common resources according to the principles she derived, then the best thing that can be done is to give up and eliminate regulation entirely: in systems too complex for direct management, only the free market can bring order.

Global climate changes, certainly, still fall into this category.

Hi, Ancap-chan! And once again the notorious question about roads: tell us, how will the movement of cars and pedestrians be regulated in the absence of single and centralized control?

anonymous question

There is already complete anarchy regarding pedestrians on the roads. In order to participate in road traffic, a pedestrian does not take any exams; they simply learn to walk—and then they walk. Infrastructure owners are interested in ensuring that a pedestrian arrives alive, solvent, and ready to spend their money at the place where they will spend it. Therefore, a pedestrian on a private street is fully looked after: they are physically separated from dangers, and efforts are made to move the points where they will spend money as close as possible to the places where, for some reason, there are many pedestrians.

But here is the trouble. Some pedestrians, wishing to make their movement even faster and more comfortable, get behind the wheel and begin to pose a danger to other pedestrians. How should the unfortunate owner of the street handle this situation if it is important to them that all pedestrians reach the spending point quickly and safely, even if some pedestrians have climbed into individual high-speed delivery vehicles? It becomes necessary to somehow reduce the risks of transport collisions by physically separating flows of different speeds and directions, and where this is too expensive, separating them at least logically—not in space, but in time, by organizing alternating movement in intersecting directions.

The same market logic applies here as in any other service sector: the more money there is in the market, the more profitable capital investments in improving service quality become. Therefore, in a remote village, we will see neither a sidewalk nor dividing barriers on the road, while in a metropolis, we see all of this and much more.

All these considerations are already in effect, despite the nominal existence of a “single centralized control,” and in its absence, they will work even better due to the absence of single centralized obstacles.

If you beat up a clerk, he will lie in the hospital for a couple of days and return to work, having lost very little. But if you beat up the president, for example, his diplomatic visit will be disrupted; the damage is great. It turns out that different compensations are due to them as well. How does this correlate with the principle of equality before the law?

Alexey Ryazanov

Values are subjective; this is an axiom of economic theory.
Even the same clerk will incur different costs depending on at what point in his life he gets punched in the face. Therefore, in the case of a drunken brawl in a pub, half an hour later he will be merrily drinking with the person he was just fighting with, but if because of the fight he misses the trip of his dreams with his beloved girlfriend, it will be fraught with consequences for him more serious than the failure of some shitty diplomatic visit.

More or less quantifiable damage from violence is covered by an insurance policy, and the insurance company then recovers it from the person who applied the violence, if it so desires. Here, the president and the clerk are equal: the more expensive the policy they bought and the higher the premium provided for under it, the greater their chance of receiving it. As for moral damages, recovering them is even more difficult for the president. The clerk can be litigious, trying to prove to an arbitrator how seriously he was offended, but the president, as a public figure, will have to weigh his words so that his behavior in court does not cause more damage to his reputation than the violence under consideration. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I were the president, I would limit myself to demanding a public apology and profit from beautiful photos of conciliatory hugs.

I will gladly accept bitcoins from you as donations, and I won’t even consider their absence as moral damage. Wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

According to economic research, sustainable economic growth correlates weakly with the democratic or authoritarian nature of a state and the volume of state intervention in the economy — institutions play the decisive role. So how do we move from modern Russia to a country with a normal court, for example?

anonymous question

As I have already noted in the article on ancap and minarchism, there are two paths for changes in society: the political and the countercultural. For example, the Corn Laws in Great Britain were repealed through political means, while Lincoln’s famous Homestead Act was simply a recognition of a state of affairs already established through countercultural means.

How to act politically is more or less clear: through political pressure. All unjust sentences are contested in higher courts, the judges who issued them are shamed, there are no plea bargains or simplified judicial procedures, and all conversations with the police take place only in the presence of a lawyer… Simultaneously, a project for judicial reform is popularized, and every politician claiming any public visibility must be pressed about their attitude toward this project; if they dare say a word against it, they must be completely denied support. In a similar way, Prohibition was introduced in the States—you can imagine how strong the resistance was. So, one should not underestimate the capabilities of influence groups.

The countercultural method is also more or less clear. A complete refusal to voluntarily apply to state courts, non-recognition of any state court sentences, but simultaneously—the strengthening of the institute of arbitration, private investigation, and contract enforcement. There are examples of the success of such an approach to reshaping institutions, and in recent history: when Great Britain began to recognize the decisions of Sharia courts, it was precisely a surrender to a state of affairs established through countercultural means.

And while others discuss other things, I am talking about bitcoins. There is a political way to establish them as a means of payment: lobbying for their legalization. And there is a countercultural way: simply conduct all settlements in bitcoins whenever possible, and reject offers to pay in rubles whenever possible. The ability to send me a donation in bitcoins from a bank card is a kind of compromise; of course, it’s better to do it directly: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8.

Why, from the perspective of libertarianism, are market manipulation and insider trading not crimes? And why should serious financial crimes not be regulated by the state at all?

@wizard1209

Market manipulation is an attempt by a certain market player to predict the behavior of other market players in response to various options of their own behavior. They bet money that their prediction is true, and that a certain market behavior will bring them profit at the expense of other players’ losses—and then they test their prediction.

Formally, there is no violation of the non-aggression principle here, but if the manipulator’s prediction turns out to be correct, other players suffer a loss, and they, after all, did not enter the market for that purpose. Therefore, it is not surprising that the manipulator may be disliked.

Most market participants prefer predictability and do not highly value a store where, as a result of manipulations, the price jumps randomly. Therefore, the store is interested in introducing its own restrictions that make manipulation more difficult, and the smaller the market size, the more relevant such things are for the owners of trading platforms.

Insider trading is the same kind of market manipulation, except that the manipulation is carried out by the trading platform itself or persons affiliated with it. Naturally, for the reputation of a trading platform, being caught in insider trading is even more dangerous than if it allows manipulations by third parties. Therefore, in developed markets, insider trading is fought even more strictly.
And the state, when attempting to fight these things, as is its habit, either simply tends to make a mess with the best of intentions because it doesn’t know how to be efficient—or, under the pretext of fighting manipulations and insider trading, engages in those very manipulations and insider trading.

Now, in cryptocurrency trading, there are as many market manipulations as you like, but the higher the turnover, the less dangerous it is for those who do not suffer from it. So choose Bitcoin; it is the least prone to manipulation of all cryptos. I have chosen it specifically as the currency for receiving your kind donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Sup, Ancap-chan. How will fundamental scientific research (mathematical and physical, for example) work in the absence of state funding? As history shows, such things only begin to bring benefit after decades and centuries. Will private foundations really invest in this?

anonymous question

How did fundamental scientific research work before the emergence of state academies of sciences? There were two main mechanisms.

First. A scientist conducted their research independently and at their own expense, satisfying their own private interest.

Second. A scientist found a patron, usually some aristocrat, and conducted research at the patron’s expense, while simultaneously fulfilling their minor whims and contributing to the increase of the patron’s prestige.

What are the contraindications to using these mechanisms even after the state withers away? Effectively, only one. It is claimed that quite many fundamental scientific projects are too expensive to implement for a single patron to be able to afford. Well, since the time of pre-state science, financial institutions have made good progress, so funds with billion-dollar budgets are by no means an exotic rarity now.

The question of motivation remains. What would prompt a potential sponsor of fundamental science to invest in a particular fund? Exactly the same considerations apply here as in patronage or philanthropy: the sponsor satisfies their sense of self-importance and gets good PR. Accordingly, for money to flow into fundamental science, it needs good marketing: stroking the egos of sponsors, vividly highlighting the results obtained and the breathtaking prospects. This is, of course, very soulless, but far fairer than the current model, where money is forcibly collected into a black box, and the report on results is given in the most tedious form possible, understandable only to narrow specialists, but not to those who pay.

Yes, it may happen that a stateless society will not fund certain fundamental mega-projects, and the Large Hadron Collider will never be built. Well, so be it; on the other hand, thousands of small projects will receive funding that would not have been allocated under a state because of it.

Bet you can’t build a Death Star on donations, huh, Elon Musk?

Of course, fundamental science will always compete for donations with art, sports, Mashinka’s nonsense, and Ancap-chan (donate here: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8) – but this is a normal market process. I, too, would like to work on making donating to the channel prestigious.

Are there examples of successful legalization of firearms (without a noticeable increase in the number of offenses)? Perhaps there were negative consequences of legalization? I know that the legalization of drugs has almost no effect on the amount of abuse. Is this also true for weapons?

anonymous question

The most successful example of the beneficial influence of legalization for a Russian-speaking audience is, of course, Moldova. A post-Soviet country introduces the legal acquisition, carrying, and use for self-defense of rifled short-barreled firearms—and the curve of violent crime drops sharply. The same occurred in the Baltics, although the example of phlegmatic Balts is not as convincing to the listener as a story about hot-blooded Moldovan guys. But the most statistics come, of course, from the States, where half of all crime is concentrated in just two percent of counties with the strictest gun laws, which are ethnic ghettos, while in the most armed areas, violent crimes are practically non-existent.

There are also downsides to legalization—they appear when legalization is carried out partially and thoughtlessly.

For instance, in Kazakhstan, instead of legalizing rifled short-barreled firearms, they only made the acquisition of traumatic weapons extremely simplified. As a result, traumatic weapons became a convenient tool in clashes between gangs: this weapon is very useful as support in a fight since it cannot be tracked by any ballistic examination, and the psychological threshold for its use is extremely low, as it is supposedly not a “real” gun. Consequently, the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction, and Kazakhstan has begun to tighten the screws, as hoplophobes now have an excellent argument for doing so.

In Russia, gun legislation is generally tolerable, although it is quite inconsistent regarding rifled short-barreled firearms. Law enforcement practice is much worse here; in many ways, it is this, rather than the law on weapon circulation, that encourages criminals—since they know that the victim will hesitate until the last moment before using a weapon, not wanting to deal later with much more frightening criminals: the Russian police.

The main thing to understand about weapons is that a criminal always has one. He will simply buy a gun on the black market using bitcoins, as it is far less dangerous for him to be caught with a gun than to be unprepared for a showdown with competitors. Meanwhile, someone who earns a living in more peaceful sectors would rather spend their bitcoins on donating to Ancap-chan, and for them, it is important to have a legal gun, as well as the right to use it legally for self-defense.

Response to the article on the value of bitcoin

Wild Turkey

On July 10, I answered a question about libertarians’ love for bitcoin. The author of the question sent their objections to this answer.

Mises, in creating the theory of money, formulated the regression theorem, according to which today’s value of money is determined by its value yesterday, and this can be traced back to the point when money was an ordinary commodity having only simple consumer value. The fact that gold specifically became the sole standard for backing money by the 20th century was the result of government regulations; in a free banking system before that, a bimetallic standard took hold, which is described in sufficient detail by the aforementioned Rothbard.

These are details; the history of bimetallism is a separate topic. Either way, money consisted of either precious metals themselves or obligations to issue them with varying degrees of reliability.

Cryptocurrency lacks this property, as does any other modern fiat currency.

Another classic of libertarianism, Hayek, openly advocated for private money…

He advocated for private money issued by banks with an obligation to quote its value pegged to a declared basket of goods. Obviously, bitcoin lacks this property.

In order to understand exactly how and thanks to what bitcoin acquired its value, I recommend reading the classic article by Jeffrey Tucker, kindly translated in 2014 by the Bitnovosti resource.

Tucker completely forgot about the subjectivism of value and sought the notorious intrinsic value, finding it in the properties of the blockchain as a payment system similar to PayPal, and the value of crypto-coins as virtual shares of such a system. A beautiful solution, but not in the spirit of the AEL and contradictory.

Thus, bitcoin, acting as digital peer-to-peer gold, does not contradict economic theory as presented by both the classics of the AEL and their modern followers.

The comparison with gold remains problematic, because gold is a unique commodity, whereas an infinite number of crypto-algorithms can be invented, and the value of any one of them is ultimately given only by novelty or the hype caused by distrust in the modern financial system.

Why are there so many anime fans among your supporters?

anonymous question

To be honest, I don’t fully understand it myself.

It’s just that anime is a genre as far removed as possible from any kind of traditional values. Apparently, free people are drawn to those directions in art that they associate with freedom. Thirty years ago, they were more drawn to Hollywood, but now, from all its wealth of ideas, only the idea of diversity stands out, and as a result, the fashion for it is fading.

And then, of course, there is the general infantilization of humanity, linked to the fact that people have begun to live longer, richer, and more carefree lives, and therefore can afford not to fully leave childhood until the onset of senile dementia. It’s all better than turning into gloomy little old men at the age of five.

Right now I have pure, unadulterated childhood joy: in the third month of the channel’s existence, the first donation has finally arrived. Here it is, look how lovely!