Is it realistic for your boyfriend to become the president of Russia? Maybe he already knows how he will achieve this, and what he will campaign for?

anonymous question

If nothing changes in the electoral legislation, he will have to run as a self-nominated candidate. This means collecting 300 thousand signatures for nomination across numerous regions within completely ridiculous timeframes. Even Navalny at the beginning of the year might have found this task insurmountable, though he wasn’t even given the chance to try.

Even if my numbers continue to grow at the previous rate of 100% per year for all six years, by the next presidential election they will amount to 32 thousand people. This is a perfectly sufficient number of volunteers for a campaign, but to finance it, the number of active supporters around this core needs to be increased by about ten times.

It is unrealistic to gather such resources entirely on our own. The task becomes more feasible if my boyfriend runs as a single opposition candidate based on the results of primaries across the entire liberal front. Paradoxically, there is a chance here, because the greater the dissatisfaction with the authorities, the higher the chances for radical candidates, while the more moderate ones will have to step aside.
So, to nominate a libertarian candidate for President of the RF, I just need to become the most prominent of the liberal opposition parties, and perhaps a small “dream-crusher” machine.

As for the question of what to campaign for, no maneuvers are needed here: exactly for the same libertarian values as now.

Everyone chip in for the “dream-crusher” machine quickly! 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Yes, right here

Libertarian orders will probably not be here for some time, and (few believe that they are) true. But does the DPR have any goals closer and more understandable to the people, the achievement of which would yield a tangible result?

anonymous question

I apologize in advance if the text seems a bit mundane, but that’s always the case with immediate goals.

Currently, all opposition parties are utilizing the government’s aggressive policies to convert people’s dissatisfaction into their own influence. Therefore, I currently have two immediate tasks.

First, to organize protest actions throughout the country, or at least in Moscow, that are no worse than those of RB-chan. April 30th with Telegram went well; July 29th should be just as successful. This is a demonstration of organizational muscle, a push for the influx of new people and finances into the party, as well as an excellent start for my candidates in Vnukovo and Kokoshkino.

Second, to hold the Adam Smith Readings in November on a new organizational level — the old cozy format has stopped accommodating everyone who wants to attend. It is not enough to simply get hold of a crowd of dissatisfied people; it is important to give them an understanding of libertarianism. I am also looking for ways to make the format of regional educational conferences, which are currently held under the “Many-Faced Freedom” brand, more effective. For example, in August in Novosibirsk, it will be expanded to two days and conducted in a more festival-like format — I suspect that values are better absorbed in more free communication.

But perhaps in your question, you didn’t mean what I am doing for my own development, but what I am doing for real changes in the country. The most noticeable thing here is the initiative to abolish the transport tax — for now in Moscow, then the experience can be transferred to the regions. Each of my municipal deputies also has their own goals, of which there are only three so far, but this autumn their number will likely increase, with your help. These are outlined in their programs; I won’t overload the post with details.

To summarize, wherever I gain significant organizational capacity, I organize pressure on the government toward the abolition of levies and the deregulation of the economy. If we recall the famous example of cannibalism in the description of how the Overton window works, I am currently at the stage of “experts talk about the numerous positive effects of cannibalism, minorities protest for the decriminalization of the phenomenon” — agree that this is already a fairly significant shift from the complete tabooing of the topic.

I publish the address of my bitcoin wallet here every time: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

I should probably say what I want to do with this money first. First, I want a new little dress. I’ve been told repeatedly that for a chan I’m not anime enough, and this whim, in general, is not hard to fulfill, and not expensive. Second, I’m thinking about a video blog.

Has really no one asked yet what you are doing at rallies against raising the retirement age?

anonymous question

I attend them, I speak at them, I even organize them📣.

But the question should probably be understood not literally, but rather in this formulation: why does a libertarian party, which wishes to abolish the state pension system entirely, oppose the state raising the retirement age?

The answer is quite obvious. There are no state funds, there are only taxpayers’ funds. If raising the retirement age were accompanied by a reduction in social contributions, I might even welcome it, provided the reduction was significant enough. But instead, the government is simply extending the time during which it intends to rob people, thereby reducing their ability to invest money according to their own choice—what is good about that from a libertarian perspective?

Let’s take the extreme cases. The amount of social contributions remains unchanged, and the retirement age is infinity. In other words, a person pays social contributions their entire life but never receives a pension. Obviously, this is less fair than the current situation; essentially, it is an increase in personal income tax from 13% to 13+22=35%. The second extreme case: social contributions remain the same, and the retirement age is zero. In other words, a person receives a pension from birth without paying a penny to the state. Since the state has no money of its own, only taxpayers’ money, it is obvious that in this case the pension will be zero. And that is exactly what the libertarian party is striving for. Consequently, it is in our interest to strive for a reduction in the retirement age, a reduction in social contributions, or both, but by no means to agree to an increase in age while taxes remain unchanged.

Come to the rally organized by the LPR in Moscow on July 29! All details are on the website No to Robbery!

I have said it many times and will not tire of repeating it: one of the best investment tools for old age is Bitcoin. I would be happy to accept donations in this currency to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8—but if you save them for your own retirement instead, that would also be great.

How do you feel about the libertarian videoblogger Egor Zhukov? He runs the channel “Zhukov’s Blog” and recently made a video about protest strategy.

anonymous question

I recently already answered about my attitude toward the vlogger Svetov; it seems that over time, I will need to answer regarding all more or less prominent libertarian figures.

Zhukov is quite reasonable in his ideas, but their presentation is not strong enough. Simple editing, fast speech, a general impression of cheapness — unfortunately, this reflects on the overall impression. Navalny or Svetov look more respectable. Alas, such details matter to the viewer.

His latest video, about Scandinavian socialism, is already quite solid, so the person is growing, and that is encouraging.

Regarding the series of videos on protest strategy specifically, it seems to me that he pays excessively much attention to analyzing others’ successes or failures, and while reproaching other protest organizers for a lack of creativity, he himself provides almost no examples. In essence, he is remembered only by one specific proposal — the “Flowers for the Police” action, but for some reason he didn’t analyze the results of this action, which would have been informative.
So, the main shortcoming of Zhukov, as with Svetov, seems to me to be that they are not the strongest team players, and within the framework of solo projects, their ceiling will be reached sooner or later.

Well, at least not against a carpet background…

Hmm. I should take a look in the mirror here…

I look in the mirror and see: experience working in the DemoCoalition in 15-16, experience cooperating with Navalny’s headquarters, Open Russia, Golos, and other organizations in a wide variety of regions — okay, I seem to know how to work in a team. If Russia becomes a parliamentary republic, perhaps I can even make it into a coalition government.

And there is already a small community around this channel — after all, LPR-tyan’s posts are not just answers, but also questions, and they are asked by engaged readers.

Well, cheers to the feedback! Bitcoins are welcome: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What happened with Crimea in March 2014—is it legal or illegal, good or bad?

anonymous question

What happened to Crimea in March 2014 was the seizure by one state of part of the territory of another state. Theoretically, such a seizure can lead to either a benefit or, conversely, a loss for the residents of the seized territory. Off the top of my head, I can recall only one precedent where the residents of a territory severed from another state now live wealthier and freer than the residents of the state from which the territory was severed. This refers to Texas, severed from Mexico. As for the territories that the Soviet Union took from its neighbors, all of them now live poorer than the countries from which the territories were severed. Moldova is poorer than Romania, the Kaliningrad region is poorer than Germany, Karelia is poorer than Finland… So history is not on the side of the residents of Crimea, although it is still too early to assess all the consequences of the reconfiguration of state borders for Crimeans.

However, there are also, imagine that, the residents of the Russian Federation itself, and the annexation of Crimea has already made them noticeably poorer, and there are no prospects for a reversal of this process.

Please note that in my analysis I absolutely do not touch upon international law and other interstate complications, because the problems of bandits don’t fuck honest people and shouldn’t. If Russia were minarchist, and the Crimeans had asked to move from socialist Ukraine to a freer Russian jurisdiction, I would have warmly welcomed the Crimeans’ decision—provided, of course, that they were ready to pay for the services they purchased—while the Ukrainian government’s attempts to refer to the sacred right to personally rob its serfs would have been met with a contemptuous “pffft.” But in our case, we are talking about two equally wretched bandits, and I can only hope that they both drop dead, choking on Crimea.

So you look at it—and you wouldn’t say it’s a disaster zone

I hope the answer was unconventional enough; honestly, I’m tired of all the legalists jumping around with papers about what one bandit once promised another bandit. I will gladly accept a reward in unconventional currency to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Do you believe in a bright future for your state?

anonymous question

I do not believe in a bright future for any state. It is an archaic form of social organization, incapable of satisfying people’s demand for justice and security, yet requiring the forced seizure of a vast amount of resources from people for its functioning.

Alternatives to the state in various fields are known, theoretically developed, and have both historical and currently operating analogues. Trust in the state is steadily declining worldwide. So what bright future can there be for this dinosaur? Let’s bury it and dance!

Dancing fossils look good on screen, but not on the street

In particular, in the area of money, an alternative to the state has been known since 2009, and that is bitcoin, which will certainly soon bury dinosaurs such as state central banks. I gladly accept donations in this currency to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

But still, no matter how you look at it, there are rules that are, to one degree or another, objectively conditioned for execution. Traffic regulations can be cited as an example. Currently, compliance with traffic rules is regulated by the state. What will happen if this regulation disappears? Anarchy on the roads means deaths.

anonymous question

This kind of rules are developed in precisely an anarchic way. There was no state on the roads when the first cars appeared, and when there were enough of them for a need for interaction rules to arise. Which side to drive on, how to yield to each other at intersections, how to best mark the roads — all this began to emerge even before the state intruded upon the roads.

It was only later that the state placed traffic controllers at intersections, and then traffic lights, thereby giving birth to traffic jams. It was only later that the state began to set speed limits and fine those who exceeded them. And finally, it was the state that built a vast number of highways at the taxpayers’ expense, creating non-market competition for many other ways of moving.

People easily create spontaneous order in any situation when they truly need it, and they solidify successful practices so as not to rediscover them every time, for laziness and egoism are the best harmonizers of society. Even under ideal conditions, the state is capable of creating only a passable crutch for such spontaneous order, and trying to beat with a stick everyone who sabotages the use of the crutch.

What are you staring at? Take the crutch and get going!

Also, anarchy created bitcoins, which can be used for donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Do you share the personal views and values of Mikhail Svetov? What do you disagree with him about?

anonymous question

Misha has greatly expanded my circle of supporters, and this naturally influenced my personal views and values, so yes, I share them for the most part.

What parts of his agenda can I not fully agree with?

First, there is a whole series of claims about what a party should be. He is very afraid of a corporate raid, and therefore wants to introduce something like taxpayers’ democracy within it, with a vertical structure. I am more often afraid of it turning into a gutted bureaucratic structure, so I usually practice decentralization in decision-making and private initiatives.

Secondly, he has controversial claims regarding, for example, what is more dangerous in modern states — open borders or closed ones (he believes open ones are more dangerous). It is clear that state borders as such are dangerous, but to view a state border as almost a collective private property is some kind of strange selective trust in the state.

Thirdly, he introduced some concepts into common usage that are unconventional for libertarianism, such as “communities,” which smell more of sour cabbage than of freedom. Now he more often replaces this word with the term “contractual jurisdictions,” but it still implicitly follows from his words that under libertarianism, a person has one single jurisdiction for all occasions in life, which is categorically not necessary. In general, this is a case where his personal conservatism, it seems to me, slightly permeates the ideology.

What I also deeply regret is that other libertarians are not particularly promoted through the SVTV channel. There was Pozharsky — then Pozharsky was gone. There was Bazhenov — then Bazhenov was gone. In fact, all the co-hosts are gone, and it was a very good, unobtrusive way of demonstrating new faces to the public. But Misha is not the strongest team player. Perhaps that is exactly why he would prefer the party to have an organizational vertical, so as not to negotiate, but simply to give orders.

Thank you for reading me; my guest was Mikhail Svetov, a member of the LPR FC. Like, subscribe to the channel, and send bitcoins if you like what I do. 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Until next time!

So, I understand that under libertarianism, there is seemingly nothing complicated with judges and courts—they will continue as they were. But who will execute the sentence, and on what grounds should one trust a particular person to carry out a court judgment?

anonymous question

With judges and courts under ancap, not only will nothing be difficult—it will be much simpler than it is now.

Currently, one must perform a multitude of strange ritualistic gestures just so the monopolist condescends to review a request and decide something, and these processes drag on insanely long; very often, both litigating parties end up as victims in fact, while only all sorts of intermediaries benefit from the procedure.
The majority of disputes under ancap will resemble modern commercial arbitration: when establishing certain relations, the parties decide in advance whom they trust to resolve their conflicts, and then, having sought a court, voluntarily execute its decision.

In situations where the parties, while establishing relations, do not fully trust each other’s integrity, they can immediately deposit a sufficiently large sum each, granting the arbitrator the right to deduct a penalty from the deposit in favor of the party to whom that penalty is awarded after the conflict is resolved.

An indispensable condition of a court is the voluntary consent of the parties to execute any of its decisions in advance. Forcible summons to court, as well as the forcible execution of a court sentence, is simply ritualized retribution.

Will there be an institution of such retribution under ancap? Yes, it is quite likely there will be.

Imagine that Bob caused some damage to Alice and disappeared. Alice hires detectives and establishes who caused the damage, after which she seeks judgment from persons who are, in her opinion, sufficiently authoritative: what compensation she could forcibly seize from Bob. The court examines the evidence and becomes convinced that the damage was indeed caused by Bob, then decides what compensation would be appropriate, and Alice, with the court decision in hand, begins to seize Bob’s property. The more authoritative the court Alice turned to is for those guarding Bob’s property, the easier it will be for her to achieve the seizure. Sooner or later, Alice receives her compensation, rewards everyone who helped her, and with that, her claims against Bob are exhausted (though he may still have claims against her, since the conflict between Alice and Bob was not settled amicably).

Finally, it may happen that Alice demands Bob’s head as compensation rather than property. Then, if the court recognizes her demand as justified, she, with this decision in hand, begins to hire bounty hunters, setting a reward for Bob’s head. They will be all the more willing to sign up for this work the larger the reward and the more authoritative the judge is for them. And here it will be in Bob’s interest to find Alice and try to reconcile with her (killing Alice may not be enough, as it would not cancel the contract on his head).

Bob, you shouldn’t have disappeared…

Only already active actions involving physical violence are considered aggression, but what to do with a person who interferes with you every day, and there is no possibility of getting rid of them/moving to another place. And when is the NAP considered violated? When a gun is pointed at you, or when the bullet has entered the head?

Anonymous question

A bullet to the head can be accidental. A gun pointed at you might turn out to be a prop…

Every day, people perform (and will continue to perform under ancap conditions) many actions that someone might interpret as a violation of the non-aggression principle, or as an immediate threat of such a violation. Whether a certain action was a violation of the NAP is decided, firstly, ex post facto, and secondly, by far more people than just those involved in the incident. This is precisely why it is impossible to establish a clear criterion that defines in advance, once and for all, what constitutes a NAP violation. One can only point out that, in general, the person whose property is damaged has more grounds to oppose it than others, and it would be no surprise if they claimed compensation for the damage.

As for the case of a person you cannot get rid of and who constantly interferes, they are usually tolerated, but seeking ways to alleviate the situation would be quite appropriate. After all, people have even learned how to separate Siamese twins, and this seems like a relatively straightforward case by comparison.

This one on the left is clearly not thrilled with the one on the right