Hi! How do things stand with animal rights in libertarianism? Can a person buy a kitten for the purpose of cruelly killing it? Can people create a community like Ancient Rome with the annual crucifixion of dogs?

anonymous question

What is the right to certain actions? It is a state of affairs in which others agree to tolerate these actions. In other words: you have the right to do something from the perspective of certain external subjects if they agree not to oppose these actions.

For instance, one kitten may have the right to sleep on a person’s face, while another may not even have the right to enter the person’s room.
Libertarianism is a legal doctrine asserting that no legal subject has the right to initiate violence against other legal subjects and their property with impunity. Thus, libertarianism reduces the question of acceptable treatment of animals to a question of legal personality. A stranger who has come from beyond the village outskirts—is he a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against him with impunity. A woman—is she a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against her with impunity. A child—is he a subject of law? An embryo—is it a subject of law? A dog—is it a subject of law?

In other words, purely logically, libertarianism can serve as a basis for defending animal rights—but only among those who recognize the legal personality of animals. As for those who consider animals to be objects, while remaining within the framework of the same libertarian doctrine, they may act toward the animals they own at their own discretion.
A problem arises when the positions of people who consider animals to be at least partially legal subjects (for example, at the level of children) clash with those of people who consider animals to be objects of property. The most stubborn disputes are always conducted precisely over definitions.

In essence, from the perspective of their opponents, animal rights advocates make claims against them for the suffering that the advocates themselves experience while realizing the suffering of animals in the hands of their tormentors. How should one react to such claims? As with any claims of an ethical rather than legal nature: take them into account, weigh the possible costs of fulfilling or not fulfilling the claim, and then act.

The better organized the groups applying moral pressure are, the sooner the corresponding morality becomes mainstream in society. So, those who nonetheless wish to crucify dogs without hindrance in a libertarian society need to start promoting this hobby of theirs in advance—under the banner of preserving cultural traditions, or some other way.

the kitty is sad(((

Hi! How do you feel about feminism? And what if I am a feminist and share libertarian ideas? Will I be accepted into the libertarian party? And how comfortable will I be there (I’ve heard that many of you don’t like feminists)?

anonymous question

Hi!

The answer to this question was composed in close cooperation with a feminist friend)))

I feel positive toward feminism, although I do not consider myself part of the movement. I am for equality. Whether or not to share certain values and ideas is a personal matter for each individual, and I have nothing against it as long as the non-aggression principle is not violated.
Many in the party view the problems raised by feminism as a particular case of the problem of aggressive violence, seeing no value in categorizing these issues as a separate class. So, in principle, it is entirely possible to simultaneously hold feminist and libertarian ideas.

How comfortable will a feminist be in the LPR? They certainly won’t be lonely, because there are feminists in the party, but as for comfort, I can’t say—that is a rather subjective concept. There are some in the party who are absolutely livid with non-libertarian feminists, but there are very few of them.

A post that lifts the veil and finally confuses everything

I want to introduce you to a true LPR-chan, known to many as @cannibalica

LPR-chan

Now, please send all nudes and questions about the libertarian party to her.

As for me, I will be happy to continue answering your questions on ancap, economic theory, libertarian law, ethics, and similar matters.

Ancap-chan

Thank you for staying on the channel! Love you all!

Let’s consider a situation: someone builds a pyrotechnics factory in the city center, and everyone’s fire insurance premiums go up. But the factory owner has not violated the NAP, so he owes nothing to anyone (and no one can forbid him from building this factory). Do libertarians not consider this a problem?

anonymous question

To answer this question more fully, Alexei Tereshchuk aka @kamendant, leader of the Austrian School of Economics public page on VKontakte and the chat on the same topic in Telegram, was brought in as an expert. Below is a mix of his explanations and my own thoughts.

What is the difference between the case of a factory that pollutes the surroundings and a factory that raises the cost of property insurance for its neighbors?

In the first case, the factory causes direct damage to those around it, and this damage can theoretically be subject to compensation, even if the methods of calculating the damage are quite unreliable — after all, to set the price for a bunch of radishes for an old woman at the market, it is also not necessary to calculate its cost price in detail.

In the second case, it is only a matter of increased risks, and the very attempt to insure these risks leads to additional costs. Such indirect damage is not related to a violation of the non-aggression principle and therefore is not subject to compensation. Indeed, we are surrounded by many factors that increase our risks, but which we are forced to put up with if we want to maintain our current lifestyle.

For example, in the city, we have a higher chance of getting into a car accident than in the village; this increases the risk and, accordingly, the price of insurance for this event — but it is not a reason to make property claims against all drivers in the city — only against the specific one who caused the accident in which the victim was involved.

So, libertarians do not consider it a problem that it is impossible to demand money from a pyrotechnics factory located in the city center simply for the fact of its presence in the center.

It is another matter that the insurance cost for the factory itself will be much higher if it is built in the center than if it is on the outskirts — because the risk of claims from neighbors affected by an accident will be insured, which means it is more profitable for the factory owner not to have neighbors in the danger zone.

explosion at a pyrotechnics factory – fun and scary

Libertarianism assumes only private companies (anarcho-cap.). But what about state hospitals? Does it mean a sick person will not be able to receive free help? There are quite many sick people, and not everyone has money. Charity is unlikely to help here.

anonymous question

Let’s keep it simple. Let’s open the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation for 2017 and look at health care spending. 2.8 trillion rubles. That is 20 thousand rubles per person per year, less than 1.7 thousand per month, and this amount includes all corruption, all kickbacks, embezzlement, and simply inefficient spending. Absolutely pittance, less than the average utility bill.

In a situation where there are no taxes or regulations, by very conservative estimates, wages would increase, say, by only 50%. Suppose that all those who were previously treated under a compulsory health insurance policy purchase voluntary insurance policies exactly in the amount of former government health expenditures, spending approximately 1,700 rubles per person per month, and all those who previously paid out of pocket maintain their habits. The median salary in Russia today, according to a very sloppily conducted survey on Navalny’s blog, is about 15,000 rubles.

What is the result? The median salary under ancap increases by 50% and becomes 22,500 rubles. Let’s say the median worker supports one dependent. He pays 3,400 rubles for two policies, and he has 19,100 rubles left. That is, he is still wealthier than he was before ancap, while also having good paid medicine.

Of course, there are still cases where a poor family faces an expensive-to-treat disease not covered by a standard policy. What does a poor family do now? They go to charitable foundations, and those foundations spam social networks with posts saying “Mashenka has a fucking disaster of a disease, we urgently need a trillion rubles.” Well, that is exactly what they will do under ancap, only the probability of receiving money to treat the disaster will increase by 50%, proportional to the increase in average income (assuming that people continue to donate to charity approximately the same percentage of their income as they do now).

Summary. Fully privatized and deregulated healthcare in the absence of taxes is capable of providing every Russian with medical service better than what they have now, without requiring amounts that would be critical for them.

treat the disaster!

What to do if I am in a new class and nobody is friends with me?

anonymous question

A second non-serious question, so there will be two answers in one day

From the perspective of Marxist class theory, supplemented by Leninist class practice, when transitioning to another class, a person may share the interests of their old class for a long time, and thus participate in the class struggle on the wrong side. That is exactly why newly recruited representatives of a class usually strive to be holier than the Pope: if they are a nouveau riche, then with a mega-yacht; if a peasant, then with a beard down to the floor and a back fully hunched with traditional values. You can try this tactic; it looks funny from the outside, but psychologically, they say, it helps a lot.

And from the point of view of the Austrian school of economics, classes do not exist, Neo)

are not friends…

When will the Rostral Columns finally be renamed the Lustral ones?

anonymous question

In honor of Sunday, a day of unserious questions is declared=)

Unserious answer 1

When Mikhail Svetov transfers to the St. Petersburg branch of the LPR.

Unserious answer 2

When Alexander Litreev’s video blog reaches 100 thousand subscribers.

Serious answer

You did it when you asked your question. Any location has as many names as are used. There is the Nemtsov Bridge in Moscow, there is the Navalny Park in Novosibirsk, and now there are the Lustral Columns in St. Petersburg. At the same time, you can name the bow of every yacht on every column: this one is Photinia, and this one is St. Princess Olga…