And what about global warming?

I think it would be foolish to deny this phenomenon. The consequences of warming include the melting of glaciers and the flooding of lands, and consequently, the violation of property rights. Who should bear responsibility for this? And how can the market be used to prevent it?

anonymous question

For the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants, global warming is, of course, wonderful. History clearly shows that during periods of climatic optima (which is why they are called optima), it was far more comfortable for people to live than during periods of cooling: at the very least, they didn’t starve to death as actively.
However, for the inhabitants of the atolls of some Kiribati, warming provides no benefit, as it is already warm at the equator; instead, the rise in ocean levels is a very real problem.

So yes, indeed, some people benefit from certain climatic changes and others from different ones, and if climate change is anthropogenic, then those for whom this externality is negative have grounds to file a claim for damages against those involved in anthropogenic climate change.
Let’s imagine how this could be implemented under ancap, that is, in a free market system. A native of Kiribati goes on the internet, first looks for theoretical information about the industries contributing most to global warming, then finds specific companies operating in those industries, and then starts flooding them with lawsuits? It seems unrealistic. Too many competencies are required from the victim; it is too difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for damages. When the damage is finally calculated, it may easily turn out that the calculation cost more than the amount of compensation. What is left?

Only private charity remains. Eco-activists create hype by filming videos about unfortunate natives disappearing underwater. Companies and individual media personalities capitalize on the hype by creating a fund to help those affected by flooding. With the fund’s money, individual natives who wish to do so are solemnly helped, in front of cameras, to move somewhere to Hawaii, the Philippines, or the Solomon Islands, or are simply given money, with which they acquire a yacht and then decide for themselves which harbor to dock in. Voilà, everyone is happy, everyone profits, the market has solved it!

Kiribati

Well, you understand that the mention of private charity wasn’t just for nothing, right? How about chipping in for a yacht? 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8 

There is a rule in libertarianism that if there is no victim, there is no court. It turns out that it would be profitable for a bandit to destroy the entire family so that no victims remain. Something about this is wrong…

anonymous question

So, I live in my own house, and one of my neighbors killed another neighbor and his entire family. What happens to the price of my house because a dangerous psycho lives next door? It drops rapidly. Who am I after that? A victim.

In a situation where law is decentralized, your moral judgment can always become the basis for your actions. There is no one to forbid you from doing something, but the responsibility will be entirely yours.

If I have enough evidence of how my neighbor killed an entire family, and I kill him afterwards, then to whoever accuses me of this murder, I will show this evidence and explain that I had sufficient grounds to fear for my own life, as the deceased was far too unpredictable. And I’ll bring up the argument about the house price, just as a cherry on top.

And then we’ll see if I can make peace with the relatives and acquaintances of the deceased.

In the modern world, which is largely individualistic, moral evaluations of actions usually play a more significant role than kinship ties—after all, we no longer live in a clan society where the kin effectively acted as a single legal entity.

reconciliation of blood feud parties

Suppose there is a terminally ill person who cannot be saved in any way, and has a couple of weeks left. Would euthanasia be a violation of the NAP? Is his consent/the consent of his relatives needed for this?

anonymous question

Euthanasia is not a violation of the non-aggression principle; it is merely the execution of the owner’s instructions regarding the disposal of their own body. You commission one specialist to give you a haircut, another for a massage, a third for an abortion, a fourth to remove a kidney for transplant, and a fifth to kill you. These are all perfectly correct instructions. The only subtlety in the euthanasia procedure is to ensure that the instruction is indeed given voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences. Well, the sale of real estate requires the observance of exactly the same legal precautions, as does any other important and responsible transaction.

The situation becomes slightly more complex when a person lacks the technical ability to give instructions for their euthanasia, for instance, because they are in a coma. In this situation, the decision is made by the person paying for the life support. It is this person who has the full right at any moment to consider further expenses impractical—and to offer any willing party the chance to take over the further burden of costs. If no willing parties are found, then life will no longer be supported.

Finally, a situation is possible where a person is in a coma and an insurance company is paying for their life support. Here, the company does not have the right to refuse to fulfill its obligations at any moment. First, it must fully exhaust the insurance premium due to the person under the contract in attempts to restore the insured health, and only after failure can it stop spending the money. Any attempts by the heirs of the insured person to claim something like “unplug him from the machine, and we will receive the remainder of the insurance as an inheritance; our father, had he been conscious, would have commissioned you to do this himself,” are most logically regarded as incitement to murder for mercenary purposes.

For mercenary purposes, I incite you to make a voluntary donation to the development of this channel. Drop some money to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

You wrote that in the event that a child is subjected to domestic violence, a third party can only explain the child’s rights to them. But isn’t such treatment of children aggression? Why, in this case, are the actions of the parent/guardian not a violation of the NAP?

anonymous question

I wrote that an outsider can use the rich arsenal of peaceful resolution techniques with impunity, but applying violence or the threat of violence is at their own risk. If you see a fight, it would be appropriate to inquire whether it is a private fight before intervening. Similarly, upon seeing violence against a child, it is appropriate to ask the child if they need help. If there is no opportunity or desire to clarify this important point, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Yes, the guardian is using violence against the child and thereby violating the principle of non-aggression toward them. However, by manifesting aggression against the child’s guardian without the child’s sanction, you also violate the principle of non-aggression toward the child. And it is the child who will be the first one asked after this incident who exactly caused them harm. And you could very well turn out to be the one who caused that harm.

Your evidence regarding the extent of the violence against the child must be damn convincing for an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction both you and the child’s guardian recognize, to rule that guardianship rights should indeed transfer from the current guardian to another party wishing to obtain them, in a situation where the child does not demonstrate a desire to change guardians.

Does justice exist?

anonymous question

I would define justice as the outcome of a certain chain of events in which adherence to libertarian principles brought profit, and non-adherence brought loss.

People, as a rule, want to live in a just world. Since not all events in a person’s life are linked to their own efforts, they occasionally find themselves in a situation where completely irreproachable behavior leads to sad consequences. Various curious mechanisms, such as afterlife retribution, karma, and so on, are used as a means of psychological defense against such frustrations.

In other words, a person is free to arrange events into a chain in an arbitrary manner, and it is quite natural for them to do so in a way that the outcome of events in the chosen chain turns out to be just. Lived peacefully, suffered from an offender, continued to live peacefully, then a river carried the offender’s corpse past — justice prevailed. Lived peacefully, suffered from an offender, died. Now they will surely be rewarded for a righteous life, and justice, once again, will prevail.

So — yes, justice exists, and it exists in people’s heads. Just as the state and other mental constructs exist in people’s heads.

Although the value of bitcoins is completely subjective and exists only in people’s heads, the bitcoins themselves objectively exist in wallets. If you like the channel, rewarding the author with a donation would be perfectly just. Send it here: 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

How do libertarians view urbanism? It is clear that they do so differently, but are there any common points? I have heard much negativity from members of the LPR towards the projects of Varlamov and Katz.

anonymous question

Mainstream urbanism is a concept according to which cities should be developed using methods of centralized planning, but this planning should be carried out not by some lobbyists, but by experts based on current scientific research. Urbanists are hardly bothered by the fact that present-day scientific developments may contradict those of the past. After all, it is a quite common occurrence when every subsequent electrician who comes to fix the wiring first asks into the void which idiot did the wiring before him.

Naturally, libertarians can conceptually approve only urbanism based on economic theory—in other words, on the idea that the market should not be hindered from solving truly complex issues, such as ensuring spontaneous order in a large city, which is precisely what it is best at.
Thus, libertarian urbanism is the maximum privatization of all public spaces in the city and the maximum deregulation of interaction between the owners of urban spaces.

Supporting preferred initiatives through voluntary donations is precisely an example of spontaneous order at work, where those projects that best satisfy the desires of consumers flourish. You know what to do:  1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Please provide the Russian article title you would like me to translate.

The second hundred subscribers came along unexpectedly quickly; all it took was one repost in the St. Petersburg LPR channel. LPR started in St. Petersburg, and this branch is still one of the most original; thank you, guys, and good luck with your development!

I celebrated the anniversary by finishing the tags and images in old posts up until the bot broke on July 1st—nothing further back in history will be edited.

As your likes show, the most popular posts are those about tyans and Misha Svetov, but at the same time, tyans gather fewer dislikes. Tyans rule!

St. Petersburg rules!

How does libertarianism view participation in certain projects organized by the city administration (youth movements, for example). After all, on one hand it is the government, but on the other, it is municipal government… And it’s somehow unclear.

anonymous question

Libertarianism views taxes with suspicion because they are robbery. But once taxes have already been seized, and it was impossible to prevent this, and they cannot be returned in the form of money, there is nothing shameful about receiving partial compensation for the damage by consuming some of the tangible goods provided by the authorities.

If we are talking about the possibility of cooperating with local authorities on certain projects, then one must first look at the effect this joint activity has on third parties. If it involves the infringement of their rights, then cooperation with the authorities is shameful. For example, participating in some Orthodox patrol that demands adherence to Orthodox moral norms from passers-by would be shameful. There seems to be no damage to reputation from participating in charity under the patronage of local authorities, provided it is not a PR cover for some embezzlement. However, any military-patriotic theme is a literal minefield; one must think carefully about every step, where it is worth cooperating and where it is not.

And in any case, such things cannot have a higher priority than resisting state robbery and other forms of violence.

organized youth is always very strange…

Let’s say my property (whether it be a cow, or perhaps just an ordinary ball) ends up on my neighbor’s plot, but we have concluded no agreements for such cases. Can the neighbor in such a case take my ball, kill my cow?

anonymous question

To begin with, the neighbor must be prepared to prove that it was not he who stole the ball or the cow, but that it landed on his land on its own. Then, he must be prepared to prove that the landing of a foreign object on his property caused him damage. And finally, he must be prepared to prove that he did not know and had no simple ways of finding out who owned the object, and therefore considered the appropriation of the object as the most logical way to compensate for the damage, rather than approaching the owner of the object with a demand for compensation.

The title of ownership to an object does not transfer from one subject to another simply because the object changed location. But, of course, in a situation where it is unknown whose cow grazed on someone else’s plot for two years, managed to calve, and then the owner of the cow appears, the owner of the plot would probably be able to justify his rights to the calf. Similarly, if the owner of a ball comes to claim it after a week, the owner of the ball is unlikely to be entitled to demand rental payment for the fact that the ball was used to play football.

Trespassers will be shot