There is an owner of land and a warehouse with ammonium nitrate on it. And then it explodes, causing a lot of damage to the adjacent territories (see the Tianjin explosion). The owner was blown to smithereens, there are no heirs. Will the victims have a preemptive right to a share of the land under the warehouse, or is it first come, first served?

Anonymous question

If the land was owned by the warehouse owner, then it, of course, like other remaining property, must go toward the partial compensation for damages to the neighbors. If any of the neighbors wish to receive their share in kind, it will be necessary to deal with and conduct a land survey; however, if everyone agrees to money, there will be fewer problems, and the plot can be divided into lots of arbitrary configuration for ease of sale.

Tianjin

I am glad if this simple consultation helped you. It is best to express gratitude in monetary form: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Until what age do I need to ask your daddy’s permission

Anonymous question

Ancap, boys, this is the decentralization of law.

Dad has his opinion, mom has hers, you have yours, and I have mine. As long as I am actually dependent on my parents, it makes sense for you and me to be interested in their opinions on such matters. Once I stop being dependent, seeking their opinion can only be done for the purpose of building a friendly relationship with them.

And if they don’t agree with each other, then they can figure it out between themselves somehow.

But there is another possibility. You asked my opinion about hooking up, I’m for it. You asked Dad’s, he’s also for it. You asked Mom’s, she’s against it. We decide to ignore Mom’s opinion, and she shoots you in the back of the head for your lack of understanding. Now, when the court hearing happens, Mom will depend on the judge’s opinion regarding the permissibility of her actions, but you will already be indifferent to that.

no mom jokes here!

By the way, the appearance of a permanent source of income brings forward the date of a girl’s emancipation from her parents, so give girls bitcoins 😏
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Is that which is done with soul more valuable?

Anonymous question

Someone who values things made with soul more will, all other things being equal, prefer that which is made with soul.

But in general, claiming that something made with soul is more expensive is incorrect. Perhaps the master who worked with soul sees a kindred spirit in the buyer and sells it cheaper. Perhaps a soulless thing is released under an expensive fashion brand. Perhaps something made with soul requires unique spare parts, while standard stamping is cheaper to maintain. In other words, there are countless factors influencing value, and highlighting only one of them as the leading one serves didactic purposes rather than demonstrating a practical regularity.

What could be more precious than a kitty made with soul?

I wouldn’t refuse soulless bitcoins, by the way
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

How lonely was Robinson without Friday?

anonymous question

As everyone who has read anything on economic theory knows, Robinson was damn lonely without Friday: there was no one to practice the division of labor with, and without the division of labor, economic growth is extremely difficult. Who, one might ask, is Robinson supposed to demonstrate the benefits of trade to—under conditions of both relative and absolute comparative advantage in labor productivity—if there is no peaceful, cooperative savage at hand?

No way, a decade of forced juche on a deserted island would convince even a Korean communist that autarky is a bad idea, let alone a representative of a trading nation.

Here it is, the turtle upon which all the popularization of economic theory stands!

Bitcoin is the one thing without which Robinson is especially lonely on a deserted island, and it’s also the best gift for a girl. 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Libertarians campaign so actively for cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular; why are they not bothered by the fact that this seriously contradicts the gold standard, which 19th-century liberals and, for example, Mises and Rothbard, cared so much about?

Wild Turkey

Mises, in creating the theory of money, formulated the regression theorem, according to which the current value of money is determined by its yesterday’s value, and this can be traced back to the moment when money was an ordinary commodity having only simple consumer value.

The fact that gold specifically became the single standard for backing money by the 20th century was the result of government regulations; prior to that, a bimetallic standard had taken hold in a free banking system, which is described in sufficient detail by the aforementioned Rothbard.

Another libertarian classic, Hayek, openly advocated for private money…

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

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

And yes, it is high time to donate a few bitcoins to the development of the channel: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

If the state is destroyed, corporations will take its place, won’t they?

Anonymous question

A lot here depends on what you put into the concept of “the state.”

If we are talking about who will become the new provider of the services that the state currently provides, then yes, of course, who if not corporations would take their place. Private companies are already successfully competing with state ones in the markets of medicine, education, pension provision, the creation of technical standards, and much more—effectively any market-demanded services that the state does not explicitly usurp.

As for those functions over which the state tries to usurp a monopoly—establishing arbitrary rules in a certain territory, forcibly redistributing property, and so on—then illegal criminal groups will take the place of the state here. In essence, the state currently differs from them only by legality. It is this very crutch that I want to kick out from under it.

In this regard, many people ask: will crime increase if one of the criminal groups loses its dominant status? History tells us that it could either increase or decrease. If we destroy the state for the sake of the sacred right of barons to uncontrollably plunder villeins, then crime will increase. If we destroy the state for the sake of the sacred right of citizens to uncontrollably own property, then crime will decrease. The devil is in the details: not only the state of the environment is important, but also the ideas that guide the actions of the people living in that environment.

bad, bad corporation!

Petya killed Vanya

Petya killed Vanya. Petya is on trial. During the trial, it is revealed that Vanya was a serial killer. By killing him, Petya eliminated a violator of the NAP and saved many lives. The problem is that Petya had no idea about his victim’s sins—Petya is simply a scumbag and a murderer.

Should we condemn Petya for murder or acquit him because Vanya violated the NAP?

In other words, at what point does a violator of the NAP exit the NAP—at the moment the crime is committed, or when a third party finds out about it?

In this problem, we are operating within the zone of libertarian law.

Evgeny Kvasov

Elevating the NAP to the rank of the primary principle of libertarianism leads to many disagreements and linguistic monstrosities, such as “violation of the moral NAP,” “I didn’t enter into a NAP with you,” or “exiting the NAP.” People perceive the non-aggression principle as something like a contract that can be entered into, terminated, and supplemented with additional conditions.

It is far more convenient to derive everything directly from the basic axiom of libertarianism—the axiom of self-ownership. Petya killed Vanya, thereby infringing upon Vanya’s private property—Vanya’s body. It does not matter whether Petya was a bounty hunter for the “Sonechko” insurance company hunting Vanya, a former contractor for the Moscow Kingdom, or a drunkard who killed a stranger for a sideways glance, or even if Petya was defending himself from Vanya’s attack. In any case, Petya damaged someone else’s property, and he must now be prepared to bear responsibility for it.

If someone is found who wants to, or is contractually obligated to, deal with Vanya’s killer, then Petya will have to either fight back or try to reach an agreement—either amicably or in court.

According to the conditions of the problem, Petya agreed to a trial. In the trial, in our case, it is revealed that Vanya in no way encroached upon Petya, and Petya was not acting on behalf of those to whom Vanya had previously caused harm. This means that there was a violation of the NAP on Petya’s part, and the plaintiff—for example, Vanya’s insurance company—can demand compensation. It also emerges in court that Vanya is a long-time violator of the NAP, and a reward has been placed on his head by another insurance company.

The most likely outcome of the case: Petya receives a reward for killing Vanya from one insurance company and pays compensation for killing Vanya to another insurance company. And that company, in turn, had already paid an insurance premium to Vanya’s heirs before any trial took place.

Obviously, the outcome of the case could be different: there might have been no reward for Vanya, and then Petya would find himself in more difficult financial circumstances.

By the way, speaking of difficult financial circumstances. I very much hope that everything is fine with your money, and you might even decide to thank this channel in monetary form. My wallet: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What to do if an ancap society that has successfully formed in some territory begins to be squeezed by neighbors? For example, if they are a religious state, and its citizens, possessing some kind of superiority (or the support of their state), buy land, move in, but do not want to observe the NAP?

anonymous question

The topic of direct military conflict was best explored by Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly, in the series of articles “Insurance Company ‘Sonechko’ versus the Tsardom of Muscovy”.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Most likely, this volume of material will be sufficient for you to address both the question you asked and several related ones.

But I will still make a small clarification regarding one of the models of creeping expansion you mentioned. Buying up all the land is very unrealistic, because the less unsold land remains, the more expensive it becomes, and the happy sellers of land receive more and more resources, which they can invest in assets that seem more profitable to them than the land they have just sold.

At the same time, the fact that a certain NAP violator is a landowner does not protect them in any way. They violated it — a conflict arose, now they either pay a penalty or they are fought against. In a state, the law may protect a NAP violator, but for ancaps, dealing with such problems is much simpler.

Sonechko

How to acquire land in Antarctica under libertarianism?

anonymous question

I am sure that under libertarianism, farming in the area of, say, the current Vostok Station would be very profitable. See for yourself:

First, constant katabatic winds, meaning energy surplus.

Second, a constant freezing blast, no problems with heat dissipation.
It’s the perfect place for mining, right!

All that’s left is to solve the problem of material strength in such frost, and probably some tinkering with lubrication in the wind turbines, but those are just trivial “boy problems” 😏

Meanwhile, there is an abundance of land in Antarctica—we simply don’t have enough crazy miners to overrun an entire continent; there are other types of business in the world, after all.

Therefore (I am finally starting to answer the asked question), in the foreseeable future, no more complex mechanism for acquiring land ownership than a simple homestead—that is, seizing unclaimed territory—will be required there.

By the way, speaking of miners: send some sats for the development of the channel! Here is the wallet:1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

See how much room there is for farms! Ururu!