I would like to know how things would stand with zoophilia and other perversions (excluding people) under libertarianism?

Anonymous question

If you are interested for the purpose of figuring out whether you should buy shares in a company that produces accessories for zoophiles in advance, or conversely, whether you should dump these shares, then I have no good news for you: it is impossible to make quantitative forecasts here.

From the position of libertarianism, animals are objects, not subjects of law (the exception, as you correctly noted, is an animal such as a human, simply by virtue of the fact that he invented this very law). Therefore, any actions of an owner with his animal on his own territory, which do not cause direct damage to other people who are not co-owners of the animal or the territory, cannot be subjects of legal proceedings at all. It is another matter that such actions can be given a moral evaluation, and one can attempt, through shaming, to drive someone who treated an animal “wrongly” to the point of suicide, if one has enough talent and persistence.

But an interesting legal case occurred to me, which I would not venture to resolve unequivocally.

A cat owner lives in a certain condominium. According to the charter, the chairman of the condominium is elected in general elections by the members of the condominium, and to be elected, it is not strictly necessary to be a member of the condominium oneself. The cat was included in the ballot, won the election, and is now the chairman of the condominium. Then, the owner of the cat performs a sexual act with it without the latter’s consent and publishes a video. The question is: in this case, should the cat be considered the sole property of its owner, or an official who has been harmed?

Stubbs the cat, mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska

How does libertarianism relate to environmental protection? If there are no certain prohibitions at the state level, will we not jeopardize the endangered species of flora and fauna with extinction?

Anonymous question

First of all, of course, I would like to recommend a short video by Mikhail Svetov dedicated specifically to this issue.

The main idea of the video is that to save rare species, a free market is needed that allows for profit to be derived from their preservation. Unfortunately, a short monologue did not leave room for an analysis of how to overcome the tragedy of the commons—that is, a situation where privatizing a resource is either impossible or disproportionately expensive. To delve deeper into this issue, I recommend reading the book by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons”. It examines numerous cases of how public property, which by all theoretical considerations should have been ruthlessly plundered, was successfully preserved without government regulation.

Ostrom formulates a set of criteria that must be met for the effective management of a common resource:

  1. The group of common resource users is limited
  2. Usage rules are determined based on the characteristics of the resource
  3. Usage rules are developed by the users themselves or with their consent
  4. Monitoring of compliance with usage rules is carried out by persons accountable to the users
  5. Sanctions for violating usage rules are graduated in nature.

When these conditions are met, the joint use of a common resource does not lead to its degradation. Note that government intervention is directly contraindicated here as well, as it violates at least points 3 and 4.

So, the “invisible hand of the market” actually managed to solve even the tragedy of the commons. Hurrah for the market!

There are 2 private railway networks in the Bay Area: BART and Caltrain. To transfer from one to the other, you have to buy another ticket. In Europe, however, a different approach is popular: state ownership and a universal ticket, which turns out to be more convenient. So, what happens—did the “free market” suck it dry?

Anonymous question

To start with, of course, I would like to recommend the articles and recordings of speeches by Farid Khusainov – as it happens, I can boast my own “tame” expert on railway topics. He talks extensively and in detail, including the difference in approaches between the American and the continental model of railway organization. But I will approach this from a completely different angle.

Yes, indeed, the state can theoretically make a certain service so profitable for the consumer that any market solutions simply cannot withstand the competition. For example, why shouldn’t the state transport passengers by rail completely for free? After all, it is not absolutely necessary for the state to make a particular service profitable – it will rob profitable private businesses with taxes and invest the money into a loss-making one.
For instance, in Venezuela, gasoline costs pennies due to state subsidies, and many would like to use such a service, but few would want to move to Venezuela for that reason=)

From what I understood from a cursory analysis of the transport situation in the Bay Area, it’s not two transport companies interacting there, but more than two dozen, and so far the market has only decided in favor of a single payment interface, but not a single ticket. It is possible that some intermediary company, having analyzed the sales statistics of all companies, could introduce a single ticket to the market that works for all or most transport companies, and the money from its price would be distributed between the companies in a proportion agreed upon between them. It is possible that such a product would even be successful. But it is also quite likely that it wouldn’t take off.

To summarize, I want to say that the state’s exit from the economy will undoubtedly make people wealthier overall and technological progress faster overall – but in individual sectors that are privileged under interventionism, deterioration is possible when transitioning to a free market. This is the price of eliminating regulatory distortions.

Ancap or Minarchism?

Anonymous question

Minarchism is legal, so officially I cannot and do not put forward anything beyond minarchist demands. Ancap is more logically consistent, so in any theoretical studies it easily beats minarchism; however, I have to clarify every time that this is pure theory, comrade major, no extremism.

There are two points of view on the method of transition to ancap. One method is political, through minarchism. There are examples in the world of libertarians coming to power and implementing successful, albeit incomplete, minarchist reforms; all that remains is to ensure that this becomes mainstream, and then political pressure can be continued on minarchist states toward full ancap.

The second method is counter-cultural, bypassing minarchism. There is not a single example in the world where minarchist reforms were not followed by a rollback toward greater statism; therefore, it is postulated that the model of a limited state is by definition unstable, and there is no reason to hope that it will remain in this state, let alone voluntarily further cut its own powers. Instead, it is proposed to develop mechanisms of direct non-governmental interactions and to expel the state primarily from the mind. And once the viewpoint that the state in any of its manifestations is nothing more than a harmful parasite, and that people get along perfectly well without it, becomes mainstream, then this parasite will simply fall off because no one will feed it.

This is somewhat similar to two different approaches to fighting trolling in the comments: you can ban them, or you can stop feeding them.

You’d ban someone like that, yeah…

What criminal and civil courts would look like under libertarianism (taking into account that the state is assigned only the role of enforcing court decisions)?

Anonymous question

Everything is simple with civil courts: commercial arbitration already looks the way civil courts should look under libertarianism. The parties agree on whom to invite to adjudicate, that person adjudicates, and then the parties execute the decision. Whoever refuses bears reputational costs, and in a minarchist state, it wouldn’t end there; the state would send bailiffs to enforce the arbitration decision.

With criminal law, it is slightly more complicated.

When the person who used violence does not hide, the task is reduced to the previous one: they and the representatives of the victimized party agree on who will judge, then the court’s decision is executed—voluntarily or forcibly.
If the person who used violence is unknown, first the party interested in the investigation either investigates the matter independently or hires detectives, and only after the NAP violator is found, there may follow either a trial or retribution.

A court cannot be imposed on anyone, because a court decision whose jurisdiction is not recognized by all litigating parties is legally null and void. But if instead of a court, retribution simply took place, then the party that carried out the retribution will now have to prove itself that this was not a violation of the NAP. They will litigate with those who are ready to condemn them for the retribution, present the collected evidence of the NAP violation by the victim of the retribution in court, and will be acquitted. Or not, if the evidence proved insufficient.

Thus, if a criminal hiding from justice realizes that they are already breathing down their neck, they are extremely interested in reaching the nearest prison in time and buying refuge from retribution there while negotiations regarding a trial are underway.

And if you are in prison voluntarily, you would prefer to rent a comfortable room

When libertarians come to power, will they immediately legalize sex with children and the sale of heroin?

Anonymous question

If we are considering the scenario where “libertarians come to power,” then the following picture emerges: in a more or less liberal state, a government has appeared through more or less democratic means that declares its goal to be the transition to a minarchist state.

It is difficult to say what such a government would do immediately and what it would do later. It is clear that reforms must be carried out as quickly as possible, but the speed will largely be determined by the level of trust granted to this minarchist government.

Since this trust is not absolute, it is important not to waste it on insignificant things, as someone like Yushchenko did after the Orange Revolution.

I would start with the following measures:

  • immediate decriminalization of the use and possession of all drugs, decriminalization of the sale of soft drugs, and the rehabilitation of all those convicted under the decriminalized articles. This would significantly reduce the burden on prisons, police, investigators, and courts, but would not give my opponents any serious leverage, as the decriminalization of soft drugs is a global trend approved by the UN.
  • dissolution of all organizations ending in “-nadzor” (oversight agencies).
  • abolition of a host of insignificant but administratively complex taxes and fees: transport tax, state duties, Platon, property tax, and all export and import duties.
  • immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.

And if my government manages not only to pull all this off quickly but also to remain in power, then it will be possible to deal with less urgent matters, such as abolishing the age of consent and decriminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but this would still be a lower priority than, for example, the abolition of VAT, judicial reform, and many other things.

Now, if we are talking not about a minarchist government, but about an evolutionary transition to ancap, bypassing the minarchism stage, then the term “come to power” is simply incorrect.