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.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

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.

Translation of Eric Mack’s book “Libertarianism” is finished

The translation of the final chapter has been posted on my website. This chapter addresses a set of objections to libertarianism from well-meaning lovers of that wonderful atmosphere of cooperation and equality that we value so much in small communities united by a common goal. Eric Mack’s counterarguments boil down to the fact that attempting to stretch the “owl” of small, ideologically homogeneous communities over the “globe” of a diverse humanity leads to the owl tearing: the very values for which people cling to these small communities are lost.

Now only a purely technical task remains—to format the translation into an epub for more convenient reading. Those interested may use the text to publish a print run of hard copies of the translation on paper. I will be satisfied if, in doing so, it is indicated where the text was taken from, and a link is provided for those wishing to donate to the translator.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the penultimate chapter, on the critique of property rights by Murphy and Nagel

After a long, terrifyingly long break, I am getting around to finishing my once-started translation projects. Today it is the penultimate chapter of Libertarianism by Eric Mack, in which the author examines the critique of libertarianism by certain individuals unknown to me, Murphy and Nagel. The main point of their critique is that no natural rights exist; all rights are a convention. And, since the existing system of property rights is established through a state funded by taxes, it is meaningless to speak of the injustice of taxation, because taxation is inextricably linked to the very existence of property rights. A curious judgment that should make any libertarian’s blood boil. The way Eric Mack responds to them will, of course, not satisfy these statists, but it may slightly soothe the libertarian heartache.

While the translation was on pause, the mysterious technologies of the ancients were completely forgotten, so there will be no image with a progress bar.

David Friedman. Legal Systems Very Different from Our Own. Publishing my translation

The translation of the book was started by Dima Kovalenko under the editorship of Vladimir Zolotorev. Then, several chapters were translated by me independently. Finally, the translation was completed by order of the Socium publishing house. On the publisher’s website, you can purchase both the paper and electronic versions of the text. About six months have passed since the translation was published—plenty of time to sell a certain number of copies and recoup the project. So now I am publishing on my own page the original version of the translation, before its editing by the publisher. The translation is available for reading online; I will not be making an epub, as a downloadable version is already on sale.

The book is not about libertarianism, but about the competition of legal systems, and about the fact that no ideal legal system exists—there are many different conflicts occurring in many different circumstances, and inquisitive human thought invents very interesting ways to resolve them.

I also remind you that I still have a couple of translation projects remaining: “Libertarianism” by Eric Mack and “Practical Anarchy” by Stephan Molynieux. I think it’s time to finish these texts, and the best way to speed up the process is through your donations. By the way, Stephan Molynieux’s film was shown at the MTL-Fest 2024 pre-party, and after it ended, the viewers had the opportunity to chat briefly with the author; those interested can watch the recording of this conversation on the MTL-TV channel.