Emigration and Marriage

When considering emigration, the topic of marriage was entirely dismissed by me, as migration was considered a purely personal project. Now I want to contemplate how migration affects everything concerning marriage.

By “marriage” can be understood different degrees of rapprochement. For some, marriage boils down to primarily sexual rights, for others it implies more or less shared housekeeping, and for many it’s simply relationships formalized in a state-issued official document.

Institutional pressure encourages people toward increasingly officially-registered marriages. A constant partner enjoys greater neighborly goodwill than a constant change of partners. Standard apartments are usually designed for two adults, so living alone in them is disproportionately expensive, while cohabiting with three – considerably less convenient. Finally, having a marriage certificate can reduce aggressive government pressure or even give the government some benefits.

If a person has adapted to these factors and entered into marriage, his life becomes organized, easier, more predictable and calmer, until circumstances change. And here, the rigidity of such a structure as officially registered monogamous marriage with joint housekeeping inevitably leads to fragility, since under new conditions everything needs to be restructured. Circumstances can relate to the personal emotional sphere – for example, a more attractive potential partner appears. They can – to economic, for instance, one of the partners changes their field of activity and income level. And they can – to relationships with the state, for example, one of the partners is mobilized into the army or begins to be persecuted for unenthusiastic thoughts.

The latter category of changes most often leads to such a step as emigration, although, of course, economic factors and personal ones can also influence this. At this stage, marriage is easily able to collapse. One partner decides to bail out, the other has never thought about it before and doesn’t plan it further, which means they will have to break up. The more actively the state stimulates one of the partners to leave, the fewer opportunities there are to civilly divide what has been acquired, and the greater the likelihood that you will have to leave with one backpack and a cherished “seed phrase” instead of illiquid assets, children and livestock left behind by those who don’t go anywhere. Life completely starts from scratch. Some find this quite convenient, others it completely breaks them, but in any case, now it’s not about marriage.

If the marriage withstood this test, new dangers threaten it. In a foreign country, much will be exaggerated by partners, and quite possibly – differently. Economic roles in the family can readily change places. This often happens due to the fact that higher incomes usually correlate with more specialized skills. As a result, someone who earned more at their previous position will find themselves without demand for their specialization on the new one, their income will decrease, and the second partner will become the provider.

Moreover, various preferences in lifestyle may emerge. For example, the customs of one partner will seem pleasant in the new location, while to the other they’ll seem unattractive. As a result, one will enjoy the new society, while the other will isolate themselves, old network contacts and nostalgia for their homeland. In short, even if both partners agreed that emigration was necessary, it might turn out that different countries are more suitable for them.

To top it all off, the factor of state pressure won’t disappear and on a new place either. It’s quite possible that one partner will be unwelcome to the receiving country, and he will require a new emigration, while the second has just started to settle in and is determined not to repeat the traumatic experience of moving.

In general, marriages in emigration break up much more frequently than they do at home – and this is despite the fact that people in the unfamiliar environment should ostensibly hold onto each other even tighter. This also happens, and joint trials can only strengthen relations.

So, people often go to emigration as unanchored individuals, or they become such after arriving on a new place. Of course, they seek out new partners among the immigrant community and local residents. This is facilitated by the same institutional pressure, however it may take unusual forms. For example, in the Balkans, locals tend to acquire Russian brides more often, while in impoverished countries of Southeast Asia – Russian grooms.

Also, in emigration, an official marriage certificate usually has much greater significance, since it’s typically one of the grounds for obtaining a residence permit, and in the case of marriage with locals – also citizenship.

However, a loner may, on the contrary, decisively refuse to make strong personal connections again if, for example, emigration forced him to experience their painful breakup. In this case, he will be looking for something lighter and generally trying not to get involved in anything. This is also quite rational behavior, although, of course, if a person manages to find themselves a full new homeland, then over time everything else will come into play. Let’s wish these people that their new homeland does not disappoint them like the old one.

In conclusion, I want to recall the thesis from the previous article – that for a successful emigration, it’s useful to travel with a head start, arriving in an established community of ideologically like-minded people. Such a community will accelerate all processes related to your marriage. If your marriage proves unsuitable for the new country, then with a community present, it will break up faster. If you are worthy of each other, the community will even strengthen your bond further, giving you fertile ground for joint activity. Finally, if your marriage breaks up and you’re looking for a long-term or fleeting alliance, you’ll have more chances to find one in the community.

Anyway, whatever your fate turns out to be, remember that every voluntary decision you make is intended to change a less preferable state into a more preferable one. And if you understand anything about life, you’ll take more correct decisions than wrong ones, and therefore everything will be fine for you.

Uninvited Residents and Freedom from the State: Dealing with Squatters

Представьте себе картину: возвращаетесь из отпуска, а в вашем доме, уютно расположившись на диване, пьёт кофе совершенно незнакомый человек. На вопрос: «А что вы тут делаете?» – отвечает невозмутимо: «Живу». И по закону (сюрприз!) полиция разводит руками и говорит, мол, разбирайтесь сами, это гражданский спор. Картинка не из приятных, верно? Но реальность такова, что во многих странах это абсолютно обыденная ситуация.

Но мы же либертарианцы, верно? И привыкли решать проблемы сами, не бегая за каждым чихом к государству. Мало того, зачастую может утверждаться, что такая проблема не может иметь никакого решения, кроме насильственного, а значит, учитывая, что мы не желаем инициировать насилие, и государство в таком случае встанет на сторону сквоттеров, у нас просто завязаны руки. Так что же делать?

В США есть парень по имени Флэш Шелтон – уже почти легендарный охотник на сквоттеров. Однажды сквоттеры оккупировали дом его матери, и вместо судов, которые могли тянуться месяцами, он провернул гениальную штуку: просто поселился туда сам. Он и его верные друзья (плюс пёс и пара видеокамер для убедительности) буквально стали жить в доме вместе со сквоттерами. Те были слегка шокированы таким нахальством, но быстро поняли, что против наглости нет приёма, и покинули жилище через несколько часов. Эта история настолько понравилась американцам, что Флэш уже запустил целое движение добровольцев, помогающих владельцам «пересквотить» свои дома.

В Испании дела ещё интереснее. Там появился настоящий бизнес по выселению «окупас» (местное слово для сквоттеров). Фирмы вроде Desokupa нанимают здоровенных парней, которые не ломают двери и не нападают, а просто стоят у входа и долго, нудно, но убедительно просят незваных гостей уйти по-хорошему. В 99% случаев «оккупанты» не выдерживают психологического давления и уходят сами. Иногда, правда, приходится немного заплатить. Обидно, конечно, платить человеку за то, что он нагло въехал в твой дом, но это быстрее и дешевле, чем годы судиться.

Британцы в этом вопросе консервативнее и стараются просто не допускать захватов, заранее заселяя пустые дома так называемыми «сторожами недвижимости». Люди получают дешёвое жильё, а собственники спокойны за свои квадратные метры. Всем выгодно, и никто никому не портит нервы.

Во Франции, кстати, владельцы часто вынуждены идти на хитрость: пока оккупанты ушли за покупками, в дом срочно вселяются рабочие, меняют замки, укрепляют двери, и сквоттерам остаётся только разводить руками на улице. Жестоко? Возможно. Но весьма эффективно и без насилия.

В Нидерландах проблему решили творчески – там собственники арендуют дома студентам, художникам и фрилансерам практически за копейки. Такие временные жильцы не дают посторонним вселиться в пустующие дома и одновременно привносят что-то полезное в район — будь то выставки, студии или просто активная молодёжь, которая не даст заскучать местным пенсионерам.

In Canada, private mediators have become popular. These are people who, for a reasonable fee, help property owners and squatters find a compromise and agree peacefully. Sometimes it’s easier for the owner to help find housing for an uninvited guest than to feed lawyers and endure nerves for years. Again, it sounds a little like rewarding audacity, but it’s pragmatic and often works.

What unites all these stories? The fact that people can protect their property even if the state is powerless or simply lazy. Private initiative, cunning, creativity, and a little healthy cynicism are able to solve the problem faster and more effectively than any government machine. The main thing – avoid direct violence, otherwise the state may send you to prison in this case, and anyway it will go beyond the values of non-violence that we promote!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Emigration as a personal project

A Little Theory

In his time, the article by Savva Shanaev “Mathematics in Defense of Libertarianism” made a strong impression on me. It presented various models of agent behavior, exploring how they seek to minimize personal costs through democratic reforms, migration, or secession. The modeling results indicated that public costs decreased most rapidly when individuals exercised “vote with feet,” and that democratic mechanisms played only a supplementary role. Regarding secession – the formation of a new jurisdiction – it functioned effectively only with significant local self-sufficiency.

Naturally, this model’s effectiveness depends on minimizing the cost of status changes; therefore, the article framed it as an argument for extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions. However, analyzing how these three jurisdictional change options function in reality reveals that secession or a state transition via democratic means is incredibly expensive, lengthy, and requires coordinating numerous individuals. Migration, conversely, remains cheaper and effective even when it’s a purely individual undertaking.

Applying Theory to Real Immigration

When considering relocating to another country, people often focus solely on the relationship between an individual and the state. Consequently, they select countries where the state is perceived as benevolent and offering superior conditions. This severely restricts their choices, often to nothing, leaving them in their current location. Some substitute the state with a corporation for which they intend to work, assuming it will provide immigrants with all necessary support. This is valid until a job offer arrives from a reputable company. However, according to Shanaev’s model, any local community with its own rules – including those pertaining to collaborative problem-solving – can function as a jurisdiction. Such communities provide far greater opportunities for actively voting with your feet in pursuit of a better life. A corporation might hire you today and lay you off tomorrow; the state may welcome you today and deport you tomorrow. Individuals whose values aligned with yours at the time of joining the community will only begin to irritate you if those values change within the community, or if your own evolve.

In principle, the community is completely unnecessary to relocate to a new country if it can instead geographically isolate itself and remain in an old one. But specifically in РФ, this would be a dubious decision. Firstly, the cost of relocating to another part of the country may not be lower than the price of moving to another state, simply due to the immense scale of Russian Russia. And secondly, the Russian state is extremely suspicious of organized communities and will pursue any cohesive group for the mere fact of cohesion, regardless of loyalty to the current course of the state.

Some Observations and Recommendations

I, of course, assume that the target audience for this article is libertarians. However, libertarianism may not be your primary identity. For example, you might primarily consider yourself a streamer. Or a chemist. Or a vegan. Basically, your wishes regarding the surrounding order can be quite specific, but whether they are sufficiently libertarian remains secondary to you compared to the width of the internet channel, the frequency of tournaments, or the availability of tofu.

Therefore, before deciding to go to a certain place, you can always first familiarize yourself with local public chats and similar resources to try to feel the vibe of that place. Of course, all legal restrictions are important, as even if there are ways to circumvent them, this still means additional hassle and risks. And of course, it’s best when there is an opportunity to first come for reconnaissance, sniff the air, get to know the local community, understand how they live, and how comfortable it would be to join them.

Of course, there are those whose activity is almost entirely focused on the network. Their income – online. Their friends and like-minded people – online. The entire context of their communication is also online. They require only an inexpensive, comfortable environment and fleeting acquaintances from the offline world. This approach greatly expands the choice of countries, and if income and temperament allow, you can freely roam the world based on the weather at the window, discounts on tickets, and fleeting whims.

It’s the most difficult thing for those with strong offline attachments. Usually this is elderly parents and various pets. Exactly for such people the choice between their interests and the interests of loved ones is usually unambiguous: of course, you have to sacrifice your own. If you are one of these, it will be difficult to convince you; I suspect that you are only hiding the interests of loved ones, while actually just fearing any changes. And therefore, changes will catch up with you right on the spot. Practice shows that people move in families and with pets; there would be a desire to.

And there’s another category you should say something about. It’s enthusiastic idealists. They have a clear idea of how things *should* be. They get infected with the idea of moving to a community of like-minded people, they throw everything away and go. And at the new place it turns out that everyone around is just down-to-earth, no circles are formed around them, no hymns are sung in the mornings. Disappointed, they return just as quickly, spending a huge amount of resources on their wanderings and harboring bitter resentment towards those they were so recently charmed by. If you recognize one of these on online resources of your community, ban him immediately, without waiting for him to arrive. It will be much easier for everyone. If you recognized yourself in this description (which is unlikely), then accept my sympathy: I don’t know how to help you. Try to practice stuffing your head with ideas, without putting everything on the line all at once.

Brief Conclusions

Emigration is a quite radical step that allows you to build a life in a new place, with new people, according to new principles. The more readily people are willing to emigrate, the better the world around them begins to conform to their values.

When emigrating “to the state,” a libertarian chooses from kinds of shit. It’s much more logical to emigrate “to a community,” presenting only minimal demands for the state so it doesn’t stink too much, while studying potential future friends and neighbors with much greater care.

The latter applies to those who have already formed an emigration community: don’t call everyone in indiscriminately. The person who is obviously not going to fit in can usually be recognized even at the stage of preliminary acquaintance. Even a totalitarian sect cannot cut out each neophyte, and libertarians all the more so.

The world is hostile by its nature, and everyone around is an enemy?

Let’s immediately give a short answer for those who don’t have time to read the whole post: those who think this way almost certainly are psychopathic individuals and probably also suffer from a dysfunction of the mechanism of violence inhibition. We will then analyze in more detail why this is so based on a scientific publication.

Some people tend to hold such a view of the world – that it’s inherently hostile. They also tend to consider other people’s actions as being more aimed at causing harm than they actually are. Thus, they can see threats even where none actually exist. All of this is described by the concept called “hostile attribution bias”.

Of course, no one is obliged to carelessly treat other people, and in many situations checking each person for potential hostile and harmful intentions is perfectly normal. But we must understand – this is done because some people *do* want to cause harm, and you can run into them. At the time same, labeling people as bad and the world in general is unlikely to be an adequate view. And perhaps some personality traits are significantly linked with such a view.

Research conducted by the University of Alabama examined the link between hostile attribution bias and psychopathic predispositions. As a result, this link turned out to be moderately expressed. So, it’s quite possible that people with high overall scores on psychopathy, as well as, in particular, such a factor as impulsivity control impairment (indicating problems with controlling impulsive reactions), would be more inclined to perceive the actions of others in situations they don’t understand as hostile than others. Furthermore, hostile attribution bias was moderately linked with all forms of aggression – both proactive (intentional) and reactive (impulsive). This shows that individuals with elevated levels are prone to respond to perceived hostility by resorting to aggressive actions of various types, including the observation of a link with the manifestation of physical aggression. Don’t forget that all forms of aggression are also significantly linked with psychopathic predispositions.

As we see, individuals who have psychopathic predispositions and are prone to manifesting any forms of aggression often perceive a threat where one simply doesn’t exist. The world seems more hostile to them, and everyone around them – those who undoubtedly want to harm them. Of course, there really do exist psychopathic individuals among us who can easily, without experiencing any psychological discomfort or internal resistance, even commit murders, and it is quite reasonable to be wary of them. But most people are still non-violent and don’t seek to harm anyone. And if someone thinks otherwise, if someone labels people as inherently hostile and aggressive creatures, then it’s perfectly justified to think whether this person is judging others according to themselves.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Libertarian Theory of War, chapter 3.2 started.

The book on libertarian theory of war is steadily moving toward completion. Having previously analyzed wars initiated by an individual, I am now describing situations in which a group starts the war. So far, the sections on a group attacking an individual and group on group have been completed. The “group versus state” scenario is on the way.

The process of writing the book is bringing me unexpected discoveries. For instance, at the very beginning, I had to deviate from strict methodological individualism and introduce collective subjects. Now, I have come to the point where I am encroaching on the holy of holies, asserting that when analyzing group-on-group war, there is no practical sense in determining who is the aggressor and who is the victim. In short, read it, and I will be glad to receive your comments.

What is the point of inhibitor weapons and what makes them better than classic lethal ones?

Unfortunately, our skeptics still may not understand the fundamental point of the idea about developing combat means to enhance the violence inhibitor. They suggest “don’t waste time,” develop a classical army and invest in traditional lethal weapons. But let’s break it down – why they are wrong.

1) Increasing mobilization potential by several orders of magnitude – unlike what is typically observed with soldiers armed with lethal weapons, drones with this means in the sky will not be shot at, even by those possessing a strong variant of violence inhibitor from birth! And this is even more relevant to opposition forces than armies of states, because among anti-authoritarian people there will be fewer psychopaths willing to kill easily than in the security structures protecting the status quo.

2) Greater public support and less outrage about brutality from sympathizers, which is especially important for a weaker side.

3) The possibility of using inhibitor means in civilian life against domestic abusers, unlike the complete uselessness of classical weapons like tanks and artillery during peacetime (billions are spent on their production, maintenance, and crew training annually from taxes, and this does not benefit society at all, and it is particularly burdensome for more free societies compared to authoritarian ones).

4) Safety of manufacture for the manufacturers themselves – inhibitor drugs cannot accidentally explode during manufacturing, transport or storage; even accidental exposure to workers will do them no harm.

5) Even cluster munitions (CMWs) can be humane. Replicable (“contagious”) vector vaccines have already been tested on animals and their effectiveness was recognized, meaning there are no technological barriers for developing “contagious” gene therapy to enhance the violence inhibitor. Of course, this is a very risky solution, but believe me, anyone would rather catch a “new cold” than be defeated by classical CMW types like nuclear or VX gas.

6) Extremely low cost and simplicity of production of the dose of the inhibitor drug. Of course, developing the first dose may cost billions and require complex equipment, but the cost of reproducing each subsequent one will be on the level of the current cost of doses of popular vector vaccines. The need for equipment and materials to reproduce is not comparable to the equipment needed to produce classical weapons (the equipment easily fits in an apartment, while factories producing artillery shells or tanks occupy square kilometers and are easily vulnerable to air strikes).

7) Extremely small weight of the “combat part” and little energy is required for successful defeat (it’s enough to pierce the skin anywhere on the body). In theory, it’s possible to create a drone the size of a bee, which is already a real technology – not science fiction!

8) Humane mines with no demining problems – after the war, classic mines can remain dangerous for civilian populations for many decades, while inhibitors in traps are quickly neutralized by environmental factors.

As a final note – why not tranquilizers to temporarily sedate the enemy? Indeed, science fiction often features plots where instead of lethal weapons, darts with tranquilizers are used. However, in real life and especially in combat conditions, this is difficult to implement because even a small dose of any tranquilizer won’t have an effect, while too large a dose will be fatal, and the dose needs to be calculated for each person individually, primarily taking into account their body weight. On the other hand, for most inhibitory drugs, the therapeutic window (a “dynamic range” when the dosage already gives an effect but is not yet lethal) will be extremely wide, and one dosage can be boldly applied to any person.

VoluntaristBitarch

Phone in a Cage or How to Protect Yourself from Surveillance

Few will argue that the topic of intelligence services monitoring activists via mobile phones is very important. It’s 2025, but things remain the same: authorities of almost all states dislike freedom and are ready to make a serious effort to peek into your smartphone. Even if you’re a super-conspirator, you’ve got a disposable phone with a “poor man’s” SIM card and you’re sitting at home, carefully posting statuses in Telegram or using this device as a Wi-Fi hotspot – there remains the risk that one day a cop will knock on your door.

How is this possible, you ask? Simply: there’s the old triangulation method. If a phone is connected to a network, even without GPS and Wi-Fi, intelligence services can calculate the approximate location of the device based on the level of signal from nearby base stations. This isn’t instantaneous, but gradually one can narrow down the search area to a building entrance, or even a specific apartment. Remember how they tracked down Shamil Basayev in Chechnya? That’s roughly so, only now it works faster and cheaper.

But don’t panic! There’s a simple solution: a Faraday cage for a phone. Sounds futuristic, doesn’t it? In reality, it’s just a case or bag made of special fabric that blocks absolutely any radio signals and is sold on all marketplaces. A phone inside this thing seems to vanish from reality: no cellular networks, Wi-Fi, GPS, or Bluetooth see it anymore. Imagine “airplane mode,” only 100% reliable.

And here’s the key point: if you keep your phone in a Faraday cage for most of the time (when you’re not using it), calculating its location is almost impossible. After all, no government in the world will spend huge resources constantly triangulating some ordinary activist. That luxury intelligence services reserve for leaders of insurgent groups, and simple activists are definitely not on the VIP list of a stationary criminal.

Of course, after purchase, you must check the Faraday cage case! Quality doesn’t always match the description. To test it, you use exclusively your personal phone – so as not to create a chain of connections for intelligence services with your anonymous device. Place your personal phone in a bag and try to call it from another phone (e.g., a friend or family member’s phone, but not your own anonymous phone). If the call doesn’t go through, then the case is good!

Here’s another tip – it always pays to use a paid VPN with a high privacy rating, both on your phone and PC, even if the phone is used as a Wi-Fi hotspot. A VPN will hide your real IP address and make it more difficult for those who want to track your actions online. It’s also important to regularly check the privacy settings of your phone and apps. Don’t forget to turn off geolocation, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi if you don’t need them right now. This will help avoid accidental data leaks and make the device less noticeable for gathering information. Remember that modern phones even in “sleep” mode continue to periodically send requests and connect to towers and networks. It doesn’t hurt to also remember about physical security: You shouldn’t take a phone used for activism to real meetings, and if you do need to move it – it needs to be turned off beforehand and placed in a Faraday cage case. Remember that safety is not just a set of technical actions but a habit and a lifestyle.

Of course, no technology can make a person completely invisible. But with due caution, you can become so boring and uninteresting for surveillance agencies that they’ll prefer to spend their forces on something more exciting. Take care of yourself and stay free!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

What’s going on with Montelibero?

I’ve been advised that I haven’t talked about Montelibero at all lately. That’s not entirely true; it’s just that I usually write about specific problems, whereas there truly hasn’t been a general overview of the state of affairs in the project for a very long time. I’m correcting that now.

Overview

For a long time, the project’s calling card was MTL-City. This is also what undermined it. One day, a local journalist appeared who, based on separate and loosely connected facts, concluded that Montelibero was a Putin project created for another attempt at a coup in Montenegro, similar to the one that took place in 2016. As a result, the state, having received such a public denunciation, became interested specifically in the activities of DOO Montelibero, the legal entity through which the land in City was purchased. A criminal case regarding illegal construction was opened, and as a result, the construction of all permanent structures was frozen pending the investigation. Well, now only modular houses are being assembled there, which, being temporary structures, require no installation permits. However, the unfinished construction doesn’t look very pretty, not to mention the money buried in vain.

Nevertheless, people live in City, public breakfasts are held on Fridays—for those wishing to meet the project participants—plus there are occasional creative evenings and other cultural events. However, to people who have just arrived in Montenegro and want to “settle in this commune of yours,” I advise against jumping on this idea without thorough prior acquaintance. In City, the ratio of costs to comfort is not very optimal, and there is practically no choice of housing. This situation will improve as new modular houses for rent are put into operation—but not very quickly.

The main Montelibero community, as before, resides in the city of Bar, spreading fairly evenly across the city, some in rented housing and some in purchased. They have the opportunity to gather at the First Montelibero Club (it was evicted from its premises in the spring, but recently opened in a new location), at Quiet Backwater (it was evicted from its premises in the summer, but reopened in a new location almost immediately), as well as in several non-Montelibero Russian bars, where the crossing of Monteliberians with the rest of the Russian diaspora occurs most naturally. In Budva, the Montelibero movement has practically gone quiet; in other cities, it never started.

Tokenomics is used by the local Montelibero community no longer with the enthusiasm of neophytes, but simply as a clear and long-familiar tool. EURMTL and EUROMUT are used for cashless payments. USDM mainly serves as an auxiliary token for currency exchanges (I, for example, withdraw dollars from a crypto exchange into USDM, and then exchange them for “mulki”). Some businesses fix debt obligations in their own tokens. The Blockchain Social Network still hasn’t acquired a convenient viewer and editor, so it remains deeply marginal. The Stellar wallets being developed by community members, Montelibero Wallet and especially Sunce, are gradually becoming more convenient. The MTL Fund has sharply reduced its public activity and is now effectively interesting only to its shareholders, and even then, not to all of them. The Montelibero Association has de facto become the mouthpiece for the project as a whole, so let’s discuss it in a bit more detail.

Of course, the fears of paranoiacs that the Association was created only to leak lists of members of an organized criminal community to “comrade major” have about as much relation to reality as that Montenegrin journalist’s ideas that Montelibero was dreamed up by Putin to destroy Montenegrin democracy. Everything is much more boring. The project activists simply rearranged the furniture in the room. I hope they’ve become more comfortable. The Association implies liquid democracy, a secretariat, and a small budget for its routine expenses. This internal kitchen has little effect on the lives of others (which is good), but draws some resources away (which is bad).

Fortunately, the Association activists also handle periodic contacts with the outside world, which is potentially the most useful part for fitting Montelibero into the global libertarian movement. Alas, I rarely have the strength to keep track of this. For instance, in recent months, there have been public calls and private negotiations with representatives of the Cosmos blockchain ecosystem (they have their own rich developments in DAO), with the MetaState project (creating a system of non-governmental electronic passports), with a project to lobby for a simplified visa and entrepreneurship regime for relocants to Albania, with volunteer fire organizations in Montenegro, the Free Private Cities fund, and certainly with others—it’s impossible to mention everyone.

The Association also includes corporate participants, among whom are the aforementioned MTL Fund and the First Club. Besides them, Green Zyland is more or less noticeable, a producer of modular houses for rent (they had a business back in the RF, and now they are expanding into three more countries). In November, they plan to hold a festival in Georgia; a few people from the Montenegrin Monteliberians will go, but I cannot afford it financially. Another active participant is the MTL Alert group. They are preparing for a zombie apocalypse; it’s a cool hobby, but for some reason, I find it hard to take seriously.

The Association is divided into factions, but only the panarchist faction is more or less publicly active. Two of its members, Stas and Ved, both run very sensible thematic channels.

The previously announced redirection of Montelibero’s efforts toward Argentina has not yet led to the formation of a Russian-speaking libertarian community there that is in contact with the rest of the project. The only news from those parts is that a delegate from Montelibero spoke at some Argentine libertarian conference and delivered a letter to Milei. What was in that letter and what effect it had, history remains silent about.

Conclusions and forecasts

At the start, Montelibero participants acted monstrously irrationally and made a ton of mistakes. How could this have been avoided? For example, by delaying the start of construction and other loud activity to instead more thoroughly scout the situation, and only then decide what to do and how. Was it realistic to act according to a more rational scenario? No. Montelibero is a movement, not an organization. It was precisely the drive of the pioneers and their enthusiastic mistake-making that attracted many new participants to the project. Without all this, a fairly strong libertarian community in Montenegro might simply not have formed, just as it didn’t form in Serbia, Georgia, Thailand, or even Argentina. So once again I state: centralized planning sucks, the market decides.

Nevertheless, many initiatives within Montelibero have successfully fizzled out, and many previously active project participants have, at best, tempered or completely lost interest in it, and at worst, moved into open opposition, considering the project to be meaningless “info-gypsyism.”

The economic part of the project must be mentioned separately. Here, the miscalculation proved fatal. It’s one thing when nine out of ten startups fail and one takes off. This happens thanks to fierce competition that selects the truly best. It’s a completely different matter when nine out of ten startups fail, and the tenth balances on the brink of breaking even. This happens thanks to a disgusting investment climate, under which one simply should not invest serious market capital here, just as one should not invest it in some Donbas. Even if something does take off, it will be not thanks to high utility for clients, but thanks to connections with the authorities, for example. And for libertarians, making money this way is usually considered “beneath them.”

Therefore, the following forecast can be made about Montelibero now. This project will not make Europe, or even just Montenegro, free. But it allowed those who believed in it to create a free society around themselves, and also became a platform for testing interesting ideas and technologies suitable for application in other places.

Violation of polaco detected

Open voting against the tyranny of the majority

Friends-libertarians, let’s talk straight: secret voting is not a protection of freedom, but a perfectly cozy smokescreen for those who want to push their desires onto others’ accounts under the radar. And if you’ve decided to push new taxes, bans, and other “gifts” to society through a ballot, be so kind as to not hide behind anonymity and answer for it fully.

Imagine a world where voting stops being secret. Want to push a law about raising your neighbor’s taxes through a ballot – go ahead, but be prepared for a retaliatory reaction from them that could end badly for you. Yes, yes, it sounds scary, but it’s honest. Because a ballot isn’t an innocent little piece of paper; it’s a weapon with which the state applies violence to those who disagree with your opinion. Anyone willing to defend their position must be ready for reputational costs as well. You vote for tightening screws – please, everyone knows who the author of these new chains is. Neighbors turn away, friends stop inviting you for beer, colleagues give you a sidelong glance in the office – that’s justice!

By the way, lovers of mandatory AML/KYC when buying crypto – here’s an argument worth a million: if you think it’s normal to reveal your identity with every transaction on a couple of hundred bucks, why shouldn’t elections – a much more dangerous affair capable of leading to openly tyrannical power – be anonymous? A tyrant on the throne is far more dangerous than a couple of guys swapping Bitcoin for USDT without a passport. Seriously, has anyone heard of genocide orchestrated by the “shadow economy”? But there are whole volumes of stories about it from states around the world!

Someone might say: “What if my employer threatens to fire me?” Well, if it’s just one employer, then there’s still an opportunity to think: “Maybe I should drop it?” But if the risk is that people will turn away from you and even start to take revenge through your entire circle, he’d rather not make any political choice at all and not vote. And that’s fantastic! Why? Because fewer voters mean less legitimacy for power. Power nobody elected looks pathetic and helpless, and it’s harder for it to restrict our freedoms with more idiotic laws. The fewer people who vote, the looser the hands of power. That’s exactly what libertarians are aiming for!

Some people are racking their brains over another question: how does Sweden, a country with such astronomical taxes, manage to remain almost an example of personal freedom? And the trick is simple, though unexpected – “partially open” voting, which existed in Sweden for as long as 2019. Imagine the picture: you come to the polling station, and there are stacks of ballots lying right in front of everyone. You take a leaf from moderate parties – and the whole city already knows your preferences. Did you decide to boldly reach out for a leaflet from ultra-left or ultra-right groups? Be prepared to catch sideways glances from the entire queue. As a result, “local Tramps” or “Orban’s” did not take root in Sweden. Freedom is so abundant there that it’s enough even in personal life, despite high taxes in the economy.

It turns out to be an interesting thing: openness of choice with clear reputational consequences – this is like a good brake on a slippery road. It keeps the entire system from radical skidding into authoritarianism! And therefore open voting is not a step back, but a giant leap towards freedom. Whoever is afraid of openness should sit at home and wave a ballot paper like a whip over others. But whoever is ready to openly support some positions, especially those encroaching on the freedoms of their neighbors, they should, as an adult, bear responsibility for their choice. Otherwise, he has nothing to do with voting and should occupy himself with something more useful!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

What Surprised Me Most About the Murder of Charlie Kirk

Читатели знают, что в последнее время я больше обычного интересуюсь таким феноменом, как война. Это неизбежно сместило и акцент моего восприятия недавнего громкого убийства в США. Что в нём странного?

То, что в США считают политических оппонентов легитимными военными целями? Это рутина. В США богатейшая традиция политических убийств, где целями выступали кто угодно, от низовых активистов до президентов. То, что мишенью стал человек, принципиально стремящийся к деэскалации конфликта? Это как раз и делает его приоритетной целью, поскольку ястребы обеих сторон конфликта выигрывают от его смерти, даже если и не причастны к ней. То, что он был убит единственным выстрелом в горло с двухсот метров? Ну, это средняя дистанция, и он представлял собой удобную неподвижную мишень. Нет. Самое удивительное во всей этой истории в том, что стрелок выбрал себе позицию на открытой крыше.

Понимаете, на дворе стоит 2025 год. Человек планирует совершить убийство во время охраняемого собрания и обустраивает свою стрелковую позицию так, что она прекрасно видна сверху. Это сопоставимо по тупости с атакой плотными колоннами пехоты в начале 20 века. Тогда колонна была бы уничтожена пулемётным огнём. Сейчас стрелка уничтожит или хотя бы выявит дрон. Рассчитывать, что у охраны многотысячного собрания не будет дрона – это примерно как рассчитывать, что у защитников полевых укреплений в начале 20 века не будет пулемёта.

В качестве средства наблюдения дрон может позволить себе примерно каждый. А в США всего год назад было покушение на кандидата в президенты, где стрелок точно так же занимал позицию на открытой крыше. И после этого службы охраны массовых собраний не внесли в свои протоколы безопасности хотя бы обязательный мониторинг с воздуха? Непугаными идиотами их назвать уже нельзя, потому что пуганые. Но вот необучаемыми – это будет, пожалуй, более чем уместно.

Думаю, тут есть какая-то симметрия мышления. Нам угрожает потенциальное нападение со стволом, значит, расставляем охрану со стволами. В таком случае дроны охраны мы увидим в воздухе на подобных ивентах не ранее, чем состоится первое покушение с дрона.

Они называют это подходящей стрелковой позицией…