How does libertarianism propose to solve the problem of blackmail?

Suppose one company threatens another with sanctions if they do not enter into a contract, and the sanctions could be genuinely serious and severely damage that company’s budget; how do you see the solution to such hypothetical problems?

Matvey

Let’s introduce different terms depending on what kind of sanctions are envisioned, because the reaction to the threat will heavily depend on this.

Let’s define robbery as the demand for a predatory deal under threat of physical violence, extortion as the demand for a predatory deal under threat of economic sanctions, and blackmail as the demand for a predatory deal under threat of disclosing information that the target of the threat would prefer to keep hidden.

The reaction to robbery depends on the balance of power, the determination to resist, and an assessment of the situation regarding the possibility of receiving outside help. For instance, under current conditions, it often turns out to be cheaper to comply with the robbery demands of a state, although sometimes one can try to negotiate a way out, provided, of course, that state officials respect at least some principles—for example, those considered official laws of that state, or any others. (For example, in Montenegro, an attempt to negotiate a way out is the most obvious response to any attempt at state robbery.) Cases of forceful resistance to the state are also possible, and if such cases are frequent, political scientists say something like “state X is a failed state.”

Robbery demands from private individuals are far more likely to encounter forceful opposition, as such opposition is much more likely to be supported by bystanders, and in some relatively sane state jurisdictions, even by representatives of that very state, especially if the robber acts completely recklessly.

Extortion is perceived by many economic agents as lawlessness and a direct invitation to bypass the sanctions. If the bypass proves successful—that is, if the losses of the party applying the sanctions are almost higher than the losses of the party bypassing them—then the sanctions will be quickly lifted, perhaps even with apologies. However, if the author of the economic sanctions is the state, its officials may, in turn, consider the evasion of sanctions as lawlessness and move from extortion to robbery. Fortunately, the state is not a single organism, but a multitude of actors with their own interests, and bypassing sanctions usually implies that certain officials are interested in making it work.

Finally, in a blackmail situation, the target must solve a difficult dilemma: agree to let all interested parties find out something about them that they would prefer to hide (which is usually something unsightly), or enter into a predatory deal, usually without guarantees that the blackmail will end there. We often encounter such stories in detective novels, and it is easy to see that a wide variety of outcomes are possible. The most boring stories are those where the blackmailer honestly fulfills their part of the deal, and the target of the blackmail, accordingly, escapes with a mild scare. A note to potential blackmailers: act exactly this way. A note to potential targets of blackmail: do not abuse deals with your conscience; in the long run, honesty and openness pay off more.

Compatibility of Libertarian Philosophy with the Idea of Strengthening the Violence Inhibitor

The assertion that the best explanation for violent and antisocial behavior is the presence of psychopathic predispositions resulting from a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, and the proposal to address such behavior through therapeutic methods, may encounter the argument that this is simply an unacceptable interference with a person’s body, which, among other things, does not comply with libertarian principles. Such a remark is understandable; however, there are a number of conditions under which this idea is absolutely compatible with libertarianism.

First, therapy for violence inhibitor dysfunction may be applied mandatorily only to individuals who have already committed acts of violence in the past, or as part of defensive actions in the event of a direct violent threat from someone and the pursuit of violent goals by someone.

Second, in the case of individuals who have psychopathic predispositions but have not yet initiated violence, such therapy may only be offered on a voluntary basis or as a way to avoid sanctions in the form of ostracism applied to them due to the fact that psychopathy is a serious risk factor in maintaining any relationship with them. In research on the problem of corporate psychopathy, companies are already being encouraged to screen potential employees for psychopathic predispositions, as such mentally ill individuals can easily harm their operations and are extremely prone to engaging in “white-collar” crime in the workplace, including fraud and deception of their colleagues and management, if they find some benefit in it. In many cases, it will be absolutely normal and acceptable to ostracize psychopathic personalities, just as today, for example, many would ostracize those with contagious infectious diseases who refuse treatment, which is also a serious risk factor. However, it would be a good thing to offer them therapy as a means of avoiding ostracism.

Additionally, the idea of therapy for violence inhibitor dysfunction can be popularized in various spheres where its effective and voluntary application is possible. For example, it can be promoted among parents as a method of treating children exhibiting early signs of psychopathic predispositions (also known as callous-unemotional traits). This and the previously described options for practicing such therapy are absolutely compatible with the idea of non-interference and libertarian principles.

It is also worth noting what is incompatible with libertarianism. Among those calling themselves libertarians, one can find individuals who adhere to the admissibility of initiating violence, or even sending a person into forced slavery through the use of violence as a response to non-violent violations, such as failure to pay a debt, theft, or simply the violation of some previously agreed-upon rules. Sometimes one can even encounter the delusions of clearly mentally deranged individuals, claiming that, for example, a lender has the right to put an explosive bracelet on a debtor and threaten its activation in case of non-payment, and these individuals also call themselves libertarians.

Such actions give the victim of the violation every right to seize any property, funds, and income of the violator that they (independently or with someone’s help) can reach to compensate for damages and associated costs. It is also grounds to ostracize the violator until they compensate for the damage. However, non-violent violations do not authorize a violent response. Of course, if someone threatens a person with violence, even while pursuing non-violent end goals (for example, demanding a wallet while holding a knife), it is entirely permissible to resort to unlimited self-defense (and in general, this is already a case where the attacker is in need of mandatory therapy). But responding with violence to a crime already committed, if it is absolutely non-violent, is clearly not a libertarian approach.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Please review this video by Alexander Tatarkov

The request is accompanied by a donation in the amount of 0.00003084 ₿

It’s been a while since I listened to this author. He is still as wordy as ever and still doesn’t provide timecodes, but it seems I’ve become slightly more tolerant of this genre, so I resubscribed to Alexander’s channel. Sometime in my free time, I’ll listen to what he’s managed to say over the last three years. If you are subscribed to him and can recommend any specific episodes, drop the links in the comments, preferably with a brief introduction.

Essentially, for two hours, Alexander spends his time explaining a single thesis: that Putin’s regime looks like a clumsy cosplay of Hitler’s. Examples cited include the style of propaganda, Freikorps, concepts of Lebensraum and Lebensborn, ressentiment, and the fight against sects, same-sex relationships, and migrants.

There is no particular moral here, just a simple observation that this is another confirmation of the heuristic that farce tends to repeat tragedy.

In general, I like collections of historical anecdotes, but Tatarkov’s thoughts specifically always have a lot of room; there’s no point in listening slower than at 1.5x speed.

Libertarian Theory of War, Section 2.3. Waging War

Another section of the book on libertarian theory of war has been completed—specifically, on the conduct of war. Surprisingly, it is once again almost entirely dedicated to the final stages of preparation for war and the actual beginning of combat operations. This is because these are the moments when actions can still be planned in advance. After that, either the plans will work, or everything will go wrong, you will get bogged down in a stupid war of attrition, and the next section—on how to get out of the war—will become relevant.

Prescription drug dispensing is harmful and limits our freedom

When was the last time you wondered why you first have to go to a doctor for a prescription to buy certain medications? Essentially, a prescription is just another bureaucratic barrier preventing people from taking care of their own health. Prescription-only dispensing is not only inconvenient but also does more harm than good. Now we will list several reasons why this is the case.

The first reason is the restriction of freedom of choice. Why does an adult not have the right to decide that they need certain medications? The prescription requirement seems to tell us: “You are not competent enough to take care of your own health; a doctor must do it.” Thus, the state takes away the opportunity to make informed decisions.

The second reason is the waste of time and money. Doctor consultations, additional tests, and follow-up visits are not cheap. This is especially true for those living outside big cities, where there is already a shortage of doctors and getting an appointment can take weeks. As a result, an unnecessary burden is placed on the healthcare system, which also hurts those who truly need help.

The third reason is the growth of the black market and health risks. When access to medicines becomes more difficult, people begin to seek workarounds. However, it is easy to encounter problems this way—for example, instead of quality drugs, one might come across a counterfeit that harms their health.

The fourth reason is the decrease in personal responsibility. When doctors and the state decide everything for us, people stop educating themselves on health issues. The mindset becomes: “The doctor will tell me what to do anyway.” This is very dangerous: instead of studying medications and analyzing risks, many simply shift the responsibility.

Finally, it is no secret that prescription dispensing benefits a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical organizations that lobby for their interests through the state. It can be used to control prices, access to drugs, and even influence demand. This is more of a tool of influence than real concern for people’s health.

The problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is often cited in defense of prescription dispensing. The problem of antibiotic resistance does indeed exist, but its scale is not limited to buying medicine without a prescription. First, doctors themselves may prescribe antibiotics unjustifiably, especially if their workload prevents them from performing highly accurate diagnostics, and patients who already have a prescription often complete the treatment course incorrectly. Second, the mass use of antibiotics in agriculture, where they are used to accelerate growth and prevent disease in animals, has a far more significant impact. Third, if we want people to take responsibility for their health, the focus should be on proper education rather than bureaucratic barriers. When a person understands the risks and consequences of the incorrect use of antibiotics, they are more likely to use them consciously. We must popularize the more rational use of antibiotics rather than resorting to etatist bans, which poorly solve the problem and only create additional difficulties for those who truly need the drugs.

The libertarian approach suggests that people are capable of making decisions and taking responsibility for them. Instead of strict restrictions, more attention should be paid to medical education so that everyone has access to reliable information. Prescription dispensing is an example of excessive government control that deprives us of the right to decide what is best for us.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the “right of the strong” is being imposed on everyone in the modern world

We are all aware of the existence of international conventions and agreements that limit the development and use of various forms of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Other forms of weaponry and many military practices are also prohibited. This is all justified by ethical reasons—the fact that certain weapons and practices are too lethal, cause immense human suffering, and act non-selectively, meaning a vast number of civilians could easily become victims. This position is quite understandable; however, it is also important to look at it from another perspective.

In today’s high-tech world, the development of weapons of mass destruction may be accessible to many jurisdictions. And such weapons are entirely capable of making them an unattractive victim, even for large and powerful states with millions of soldiers and units of conventional weaponry. Under such conditions, the very essence of the “right of the strongest” changes—the strong is no longer the one who actually possesses the power and ability to inflict harm on the weak with impunity, but the one who can convince the weak of the need to follow certain norms, regulations, and prohibitions.

Of course, this is not being said to justify the actual use of truly inhumane military practices. The point is simply that the goal of prohibiting such practices may well be to place the weak at a disadvantage compared to strong players and in complete dependence on their will. One does not have to look far for examples; one can simply recall the position in which the Budapest Memorandum placed Ukraine, under which it was forced to exchange nuclear weapons for paper guarantees of security.

Small and weak jurisdictions could very well be independent of the will of superpowers if they were allowed to develop and possess the same weapons of mass destruction—not for their use, but simply as a means of deterrence against external aggression. Furthermore, even when discussing the use of such weaponry, not all its forms would be particularly cruel or absolutely unacceptable. For example, with the current level of progress, it is now entirely possible to speak of the development of ethological (behavioral) weapons that would simply make enemy soldiers incapable of committing murder and fighting, without causing them any permanent or serious harm. Such a weapon could be an airborne bio/chemical agent to enhance the human mechanism for inhibiting violence or even to dismantle hierarchy—reducing authoritarianism and obedience to authorities (commanders). Surely, many other variants of similar weaponry could be devised. And there are no reasons to believe why any jurisdiction should not possess such weaponry. Except, again, that it would be disadvantageous for the strong players on the international political arena. It is in their interest to convince everyone else to follow international agreements and thereby limit their potential for defense against their interference.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Freedom of association

A long question came in from Georgy Nemov:

I was discussing private jurisdictions with a friend, and when we got to the freedom to leave an association, he threw out the argument that this is impossible because, in such a case, the police wouldn’t even be able to detain a suspect until the circumstances were clarified.

I replied that the freedom to leave stems from the NAP, and therefore the jurisdiction agreement could certainly stipulate conditions under which a suspect of aggressive violence may be detained. And that there is no contradiction in this.

But his answer made me think. He said that in such a case, communities would use suspicions as a pretext for the forced retention of members. And that the freedom to leave either exists or it doesn’t.

How do you think this can be combated? Or will it be necessary to outsource the execution of punishments and searches to various bounty hunters?

Well, let’s figure this out.

Jurisdiction is “legal authority.” If a person is within someone’s jurisdiction, it means that the norms established by whoever exercises that jurisdiction apply to them. These norms concern both the measure of responsibility they must bear for their actions and the measure of protection they can count on while being in that jurisdiction.

Let’s imagine a world in which jurisdiction can be changed within the framework of explicit voluntary agreements. Let’s also imagine the worst-case scenario, in which the norms of different jurisdictions diverge significantly.

Anna, who is in the jurisdiction of the Ancap company, interacts with Boris, who is also in the jurisdiction of the Ancap company. Within the regulatory field of Ancap, Boris’s actions toward Anna are qualified as a violation of her rights, and Anna calls Ancap employees to handle the matter. While the employees are on their way, Boris contacts the Bandits company and agrees to switch to their jurisdiction, and notifies the Ancap company that he is terminating his contract with them.

Anna explains to the arriving Ancap employees that she suffered damages as a result of Boris’s actions, and she demands compensation from Boris. Boris claims that there were no damages, and in general, he is already in the jurisdiction of the Bandits. The Ancaps contact the Bandits, and the latter explain that in their jurisdiction, Boris’s actions, even if Anna is not lying, are not considered an offense, but if anyone outside should apply any sanctions against their client, they will certainly consider that an offense and will pursue it harshly.

The Ancaps conduct a quick investigation and are convinced that Anna’s testimony is quite credible. Now they face a dilemma. They can pay Anna the compensation for damages themselves and then forward the bill to the Bandits. Or they can shrug their shoulders and state that their competence ends here since Boris is not in their jurisdiction, so there will be no compensation. In this case, Anna contacts the Bandits, switches to their jurisdiction, and demands that they deal with Boris. Now the Bandits have to stand by their words, because even if Boris manages to slip out of their jurisdiction, they just promised that the violation of their client’s (Anna’s) rights by an outsider (Boris) must be harshly pursued by them, the Bandits.

Scenarios can be varied this way or that by changing the relative power and degree of ruthlessness of the jurisdiction providers — and different pictures will result. It is known that historically on Earth, jurisdiction providers with forced entry based primarily on place of residence became dominant. To erode this dominance and move toward extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions, an increase in the decentralization of money, easing of migration, and an increase in the armament of individuals are required. In other words, a movement toward the sovereign individual, who agrees on norms with equals, rather than receiving them from above.

We are working on this.

Forgive me that the answer turned out to be on a broader topic than the one indicated in the question.

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

Trump released Ulbricht. During his first term, he refused to do so, speaking along the lines that both your Bitcoin is a scam and Ulbricht is your criminal, and generally to just leave him alone, he has more important things to do.

What has changed in 8 years? Has the Libertarian Party become more influential and managed to pressure Trump more than before his first term? Of course not. Compare the results of the LP presidential candidate in 2016 and 2024. It is exactly the opposite. Around the world, the influence of political parties has decreased and the influence of memes has grown. Of course, organizational structures matter a great deal, but today they do not require century-old roots; startups are in charge. Milei was not made president by the Libertarian Party, but by the meme of the chainsaw man. Trump is not the leader of the Republican Party, but Donald the Wall Builder, Donald the Swamp Drainer, Donald the Peacemaker, Donald the Immortal, and Donald the Fascist, of course, as well.

A man who creates a 15 billion dollar capitalization for his personal memecoin in a few days can no longer leave Ulbricht in prison.

In the book on libertarian war theory, which I have been writing with great effort for God knows how long, I pay great attention to conceptual subjects (especially collective ones), referred to for brevity as spirits. Spirits express the emerging community between people, describing the motives that unite them—in short, they are used as a crutch to reduce the complex motivations of each group member to simple models. Not “Vasya wanted a thrill, Petya was showing off to Masha, Kolya planned to loot, Oleg joined for the company,” but “they were seized by the spirit of freedom.”

Memes rule. He who skillfully uses memes feels the zeitgeist. Force the right memes, attach those upon whom much depends to them; let the memes support them, while they, in turn, find themselves dependent on the memes.

Ancaps are not obligated to fuck children. But supporting a joke about it is their sacred duty. Ancaps are not obligated to fight for their freedom right this second. But the thought of being able not only to run for freedom, hide for freedom, and lie for freedom, but also to fight for it, should fill them with trepidation. This means that the spirit of freedom has taken root, and its demands are growing. Someday it will demand fighting. First, you buy Trump’s memecoin, and then you discover that the call “Fight! Fight! Fight!” is not an empty sound.

2024, results

The statistics bot sent over the usual postcard about how the channel is doing. It is evident that it has grown slightly, which is due to a couple of cross-promotion campaigns organized by the magazine Fronda, for which I am grateful. I write an author’s column in that magazine, and I hope that for some, this will be a reason to subscribe to it. Another ongoing collaboration this year is writing articles for thematic collections in the magazine “Yozh“.

This year, I completed two long-term projects: the translation of David Friedman’s book “Legal Systems Very Different from Our Own“, as well as Eric Mack’s “Libertarianism” (and also Balaji Srinivasan’s “The Network State“, which by my standards didn’t quite reach “long-term project” status, although the translation did drag on quite a bit). In 2025, I expect to finish the last long-term project — Stephan Mol liqueur’s “Practical Anarchy“, and I will think thrice before taking on anything new. I am writing my own book, “Libertarian Theory of War“, terribly slowly, and the finish line is not yet in sight.

My personal discovery of the year was the website “Anarchonomicon“, run by a Canadian catgirl, pagan, white racist, and connoisseur of violent methods of problem solving — everything we libertarians value and are inspired by. An indirect result of this was me creating a Substack account, although so far I only read there; I haven’t dared to write or comment yet.

In Montelibero, I help promote the ideas of decentralization by participating in the movement to attract P2P investments into local businesses, as well as in organizing Tikhiy Omut — a libertarian club owned by its members. My contribution to filling the decentralized directory https://monte.wiki/ and the decentralized social network BSN is still completely insufficient, but I hope to increase it over time. I am also slowly adding Montenegro to OSM maps.

I hope that this year I have been a good girl and deserve some gifts.

I congratulate all readers on a year in which there should clearly be a global turn toward greater freedom. Stay on trend, join promising endeavors, promote your own projects, grow wealthy, and assert yourselves. A successful ideology deserves successful carriers!

Libertarian Theory of War, Section 2.2. Entering the War

After a very long pause, I am continuing work on the book Libertarian Theory of War (thanks for the inspiration to the Canadian catgirl). The new section Entering the War is dedicated to an overview of the reasons for entering a war and the reasons for not entering one. As usual, spirits frolic on the pages of the book alongside economic analysis.

In the next chapter, in theory, the real meat should begin, as the preparations for the main action have dragged on a bit.