Morazanograd and Montelibero

I recently read an interesting article by Spencer McCallum on the friendly site panarchy.ru with the tedious title The Community Enterprise: Market Competition, Land and the Environment. Alexey Korshunov, who posted this article, claims that one of the three private contractual jurisdictions in Honduras, Ciudad Morazán—which he refers to in a Russian style as Morazanograd—operates on the principles described in it, and in which he, as it happened, became the first resident. (By the way, not long ago he crowdfunded a ticket to the most famous Honduran ZEDE called Prospera, traveled there, and subsequently posted a report on the state of affairs in this flagship project)

Briefly, McCallum’s article contains the following ideas. The value of a piece of land can be defined as the sum of external effects directed toward that plot from all other property objects. If the landowner is separated from its immediate use and rents it out to several tenants, they are usually extremely interested in maximizing the rental income, and therefore have market incentives to create the most favorable environment possible for the tenants. For this reason, the author argues, where land is occupied by individual houses or, worse, apartment buildings where the apartments are owned by the residents, each owner maximizes their own living convenience; however, where significant areas are rented out to numerous tenants, a lush variety of ways to use these spaces begins to flourish, from cafes and shops to coworking spaces and laboratories. The task of the administrator of a particular business center essentially boils down to providing utilities to tenants and minimizing friction between tenants and the state. A kind of “protection racket” for the healthy person.

Morazanograd is designed to provide its residents with the maximum possible security for Honduras, acceptable living conditions, and a place to earn money. In creating the Montelibero settlement, we are not entirely following the recommendations laid out in the article: instead of leaving all the land under the ownership of the foundation, developing it centrally, and renting it only to residents, we sliced approximately two-thirds into small private pieces for independent development, while the rest was indeed left for rent. Thus, we should end up with a field experiment to see which concept works better. In any case, we are still at the stage of laying the centralized infrastructure, much like Morazanograd, except that we are not building a fence around the settlement, as Montenegro is not a place where one should fear the neighbors.

Dear-to-the-heart Morazanograd construction hassles, we still have all this ahead of us

With a stationary bandit, there are only privileges, not rights

Voluntarist, Bitarch

One of the most important concepts in the life of any society is rights. These could be so-called human rights, property rights, copyrights, and many other rights. But if we ask where all these rights come from, we are often told that the state is their source. That is, the definition and maintenance of rights actually fall within the functions of the body that declares a “monopoly” on its power and on the use of violence in society.

What, then, is the actual essence of the concept of rights in reality? The answer is simple—this concept is identical to the concept of privilege. Thus, under state power, you have freedom of speech only because you have been granted a privilege to do so. Your property is not actually yours—you have merely been granted the privilege to own and use it. You can practice a certain profession or run your own business only by virtue of permission granted from above. And this list can be continued almost indefinitely, as any of your rights and freedoms are actually just privileges from a stationary bandit.

States around the world have repeatedly and explicitly demonstrated that there are no rights, only privileges that people can easily lose. Over time, many types of activities have become heavily regulated, people’s property has been seized repeatedly, people have been deprived of their freedoms repeatedly, and people were forbidden from using anything other than “sovereign” money as a means of exchange; these are just a few examples of such deprivation of privileges. Currently, the privileged nature of state rights, and especially property rights, can be clearly observed in the example of Russia. Companies that have suspended operations in the country face the seizure of their assets; all foreign citizens from “unfriendly states” were first deprived of copyrights and patent rights, and then of the rights to buy and sell real estate altogether. As for freedom of speech and activity, it was taken away even from people in seemingly extremely liberal and democratic countries—for example, when harsh coercive measures were applied in Australia and Canada against people unwilling to share certain state COVID restrictions. And this list can also be continued almost indefinitely.

Even if we imagine a perfectly democratic state that still relies on the instrument of violence, the rights emanating from it would also be privileges. In such a case, determining which privileges the organ of violence will grant to people and which it will take away from them for each specific issue would be decided by the opinion of the majority. Ultimately, due to the inevitable difference in opinions and the varying composition of the majority on different issues, all people would again find themselves subject to privileges. Moreover, in real life, the situation is even worse, since perfectly democratic stationary bandits do not even exist.

For clarity in understanding the essence of currently existing rights, they should be called specifically privileges, since there is effectively no difference between these concepts. Such a difference will arise only when violence is eradicated as a method of managing social life, and indeed as a way of conducting human relations in general, as a result of which right will become not a subject of policy maintained by violence, but a subject of voluntary contract and agreement between people.

The Limits of the Competence of a Libertarian Court

You described a situation where, to resolve a conflict between a rapist and a victim, the court takes measures that physically isolate only the former from the latter, but not the former from society as a whole. But what about the fact that a rapist, who has demonstrated in practice a readiness for violence, continues to pose a potential danger to others while remaining free, even if in another city?

In other words, how should one deal with pathological personalities like Alexander Pichushkin, who, due to their mental characteristics, will continue to commit crimes as long as it is physically possible?

What are the general limits of deterrent measures for a court following libertarian principles? Does this mean that forced deportation to another city is permissible, but, for example, life-long house arrest or placement in a psychiatric clinic is not?

Anonymous question

The court can offer any recommendation to resolve a conflict. For example, “since the defendant’s actions are primarily caused by his mental state, the court believes that the conflict will be resolved after the defendant pays the plaintiff such-and-such compensation, as well as undergoes psychological rehabilitation until complete recovery, confirmed by a medical board including a representative of the plaintiff, a representative of the rehabilitation institution, and a representative of such-and-such independent medical non-profit organization.” The problem is that within its decision, the court can only operate with the funds available to the parties of the process, including those voluntarily provided by third parties. If the defendant is not wealthy enough for his assets to pay for his rehabilitation, and the plaintiff or third-party benefactors are not generous enough to make such a broad gesture, then the court’s recommendations will in no way resolve the conflict; there will be no means to execute them.

In such cases, cheaper solutions will inevitably come into play. The simplest is a banal declaration of outlawry, in the Old Icelandic spirit. The first person they meet has the right to kill the defendant, and the court, by its authority, guarantees that other means of resolving the conflict in this case do not work or are prohibitively expensive. And that’s it—then the defendant searches for a stump to hide under themselves, to live there and keep a low profile.

The poorer and harsher a society is, the larger the proportion of court decisions of the “outlawry” type will be, and the fewer hesitations individuals will experience when encountering such an outlaw before exterminating them. If memory serves me correctly, the longest term an outlaw managed to survive in Iceland was sixteen years, and this remarkable epic was honored with a separate saga.

Accordingly, the wealthier and more benevolent a society is, the larger the proportion of court decisions of the “hand over to the guardianship of such-and-such charitable foundation for rehabilitation” type will be. Again, nothing prevents such foundations from picking up those who have already been declared outlaws. What will compel people to donate money to such foundations? An unwillingness to personally shoot outlaws who wander onto the lawn in front of their house. And so—you donate some money to good people and be happy.

Admit it, an unpleasant sight. Why would you want that in your yard?

Routinization of the nightmare

The war in Ukraine has entered a protracted stage and is beginning to slowly slip from the current agenda. The most unpleasant outcome this could lead to is:

  • The front stabilizes, the sides dig in, and losses decrease;
  • The Russian economy slowly degrades under sanctions, but the political structure proves resilient enough, and the state does not collapse;
  • The Ukrainian economy slowly degrades under shelling, and effectively only those fighting and those servicing the war remain in the country; the majority of those left either scatter far from the front line or leave the country, and once gone, gradually get used to their new place of residence;
  • Russians, who failed to flee the RF in the early stages of the war, gradually lose the ability to do so: they are welcome nowhere, they run out of money for tickets, and international flights will cease to exist. Wittingly or unwittingly, they tighten their belts and begin to survive;
  • By the way, regarding the replenishment of the RF army with cannon fodder, there is no need to worry in this scenario: it is enough to give the conscript’s family army rations and immediately deprive them of them as soon as the conscript deserts or surrenders. Son in the army—parents are fed. Many would be willing to accept such a deal.
  • And this continues for years.

To some extent, this scenario could be hindered by the opening of new hotspots of tension around the RF: the remnants of Russian troops will begin to be pushed out of Transnistria and the Caucasus; the RF will try to act on all fronts and will ultimately break down relatively quickly. However, one should not rely solely on the help of Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Georgia. It is better to continue pushing the RF toward a rapid military defeat and political collapse, primarily through the efforts of Russians.

Initially, I proposed exclusively “herbivore” measures, such as burning down military recruitment offices. This creates chaos in the troop mobilization system, entails no collateral casualties, looks effective, and has an inspiring effect on any supporter of freedom. Now, however, I see that in many places they have gone further: there are reports of sabotage on the railways. Again, without human casualties. Relay cabinets, which as I understand it, serve for cargo dispatching, are being destroyed. That is, the throughput capacity of the road is sharply reduced, but trains do not derail. A mass of other sabotage proposals of varying degrees of ingenuity is circulating online, but for the most part, it boils down to provoking failures in the troop supply system.

What interests us much more is the collapse of the country. And here, it is very difficult for me to think of any political activity in the RF that would allow a libertarian to keep their “white coat” on. Propose simplifying business operations and lowering taxes? Advocate for simplifying the circulation of civilian weapons? Call for a complete transition to a highly professional contract army? Are you serious? Now? In Russia? Honestly, now, on the contrary, it would make sense to support the communists in everything. Give them full nationalization of industry! Price controls! Export restrictions on goods outside their production region! Replace Nabiullina with Glazyev! IT specialists to the machine shops! What else do they want? Let them have it. Otherwise, they will just blame capitalism again for bringing the country to its knees. No, let it collapse under Glazyev.

So, honest to God, I cannot think of a more worthy goal for Russian libertarians today than to leave the RF as quickly as possible and leave the country to be torn apart by leftists. As Ayn Rand enjoined. As Navalny suggested to libertarians. Square your shoulders.

Sorry for the choice of illustration from the popular anime Attack on Titan…

What exactly in our brain makes us non-violent

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Extremely interesting and important results were demonstrated by experiments on the use of anti-aggressive agents in mice and rats. It turned out that some of them are capable of reducing the manifestation of attacking aggression on their part, while not affecting defensive aggression and other non-aggressive forms of behavior and social communication. To be more specific, we are talking about agonists that activate serotonin 5-HT1A/1B receptors.

These results align with the theory that many species possess innate inhibitors of aggressive behavior, which prevent causing harm and killing members of their own species. In the case of humans, a model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM) was even developed, which also explains the development of empathy. Based on this theory, violence in intraspecific relationships should be viewed as a pathological rather than a natural form of behavior. Especially since even in many territorial, social, and armed species, the level of lethal violence still does not exceed 1%, and according to various evidence, only no more than 2% of people do not experience strong resistance to committing murder.

We also see that defensive aggression, unlike attacking aggression, is indeed a natural form of behavior, and the work of the violence inhibitor does not stop it in the presence of an immediate threat to life in the environment. This was well demonstrated by the administration of the 5-HT1A agonist alnespirone to rats. It had an extremely selective effect; the strong reduction in aggressiveness did not prevent the rats from resorting to defensive behavior when encountering an aggressive peer.

Various genetic evidence demonstrates that certain variants of the 5-HT1A/1B receptor genes, as well as three other genes associated with the 5-HT system—TPH2, MAO A (also known as the “warrior gene”), and SERT—lead to increased aggressiveness in animals and humans. For example, in one study, impulsive and aggressive alcoholics were found to have differences in the 5-HT1B gene compared to healthy people and non-aggressive alcoholics. This study covered two different groups of people: Finns and a Native American tribe. Mutations in the MAO A gene have long been known as a cause of abnormal manifestations of aggression in men.

According to the violence inhibition mechanism model, the direct result of its dysfunction is calloused-unemotional (CU) traits in children and psychopathy in adults. Changes in the function of 5-HT1B receptors in certain parts of the brain were found in people with aggressive traits and psychopathic traits. A difference in the 5-HT1B gene genotype was present in children with calloused-unemotional traits.

It should be noted that dozens of genes and a large number of systems influence aggressiveness. However, the violence inhibitor remains a specific mechanism expressed by a limited number of receptors and genes. Firstly, this is simply important for inhibiting aggression most effectively. Secondly, other forms of pharmacological intervention, such as the use of antipsychotics (like haloperidol), beta-blockers, drugs affecting GABA neurotransmitters, and 5-HT2 receptor agonists and antagonists (many psychedelics belong to the former), result only in a non-selective reduction of aggressiveness, suppressing defensive aggression and other forms of behavior, and causing side effects.

Understanding the nature of the violence inhibitor and its limitation to a small number of receptors and genes can not only tell us a lot about violence itself, but also help in creating a solution aimed against it as a pathological form of behavior inherent in a minority of people. And the essence of such a solution is simple: returning to them the inhibiting control over aggression that is natural for the majority, through the use of appropriate pharmacological or even gene-therapeutic drugs.

This material briefly describes the content of the article titled “Neurophysiology and Genetics of the Violence Inhibition Mechanism“, which you may refer to for greater detail.

Montelibero project news, issue 10

The previous issue was almost entirely dedicated to how we are intricately digging up the ground at the site of the future libertarian settlement so that it remains drier during the rainy season. I would prefer to continue talking about such domestic trifles, but since then, you know, a war has broken out.

Crisis centers to assist Ukrainian refugees were deployed in several cities in Montenegro. Volunteers from our project took an active part in the work of the Bar center. In Budva, a participant of the Montelibero project began helping refugees obtain residence permits on a pro bono basis. We also attempted to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine, primarily medications, but it was unsuccessful: too many borders and bureaucratic hurdles; such things would be easier to handle from countries bordering Ukraine.

Sanctions have greatly complicated life not only for those who remain in Russia feeding Putin’s regime with taxes, but also for those who moved to more decent places in advance. For instance, it has become much harder for us to transfer Russian investments to Montenegro to finance construction, and those of us who worked remotely for Russian companies faced both a sharp decrease in income in euro equivalent due to the fall of the ruble, and additional commissions to turn rubles on Russian bank cards into euro cash. EURMTL — our internal euro stablecoin — is also creaking, since its main feature was always free conversion between tokens and euro cash, and now, apparently, we will not be able to avoid the appearance of cash-out fees.

Another direct consequence of the war was that many project participants, who had previously been slowly planning their move to Montenegro, were forced to urgently speed up and rush here in haste. In one month, the size of the Montenegrin libertarian community doubled, and now there are more than forty of us here. Gathering everyone together in some cafe became impossible, so we rented a separate pavilion that had stood abandoned since the time of Covid and began to tidy it up. Now we have a place for meetings, and soon we plan to start giving lectures on libertarianism there. This is quite relevant because we have already become quite noticeable to the local Russian-speaking diaspora, and people are keenly interested in who we are and what motivates us. In the good old days, when the activity of the libertarian party was flourishing in Russia, in no Russian city with a population of 20,000 people (like Bar) or even 40,000 people (counting Budva) did the number of libertarian activists even come close to four dozen, so we have already created a concentration of libertarians higher than it ever was anywhere in the RF, and this is only the beginning. Forgive me, I’m starting to sound like Svetlov, I need to tone down the pathos.

Despite all the problems described above, construction in the Montelibero settlement continues. Utilities are being laid throughout the site: sewage pipes and channels for everything else: water pipes, cables, and so on.

We are waiting for the results of the parcelization to finally be reflected in the state cadastre so that the land can be divided among the co-owners, but the Montenegrin state is an exceptionally slow thing. It is possible that the first houses will begin to be built even before the property rights to the plots are fixed.

It is still unclear whether a delegation from us will go to Liberticon, but we have agreed with the organizers to place our advertisements, and we also asked one of the Russian expat-libertarians living in the Czech Republic to present our project.

In short, now even the complete closure of the borders with Russia will not stop us; the foundation is already sufficient to continue growing without the influx of new Russian immigrants. But a nuclear war in Europe, perhaps, could seriously damage our plans; we would like to do without it.

The book about ancap – finished polishing the section on human imperfection

I have finished the chapter about the likely approaches in an anarcho-capitalist society to solving problems related to the fact that a real person is by nature not necessarily always fully ready to act as a full legal subject, as well as the fact that their planning horizon may in some cases be extremely short. Now all that remains is to finish the section on the non-ideality of society, and then I can summarize the second part of the book.

As a reminder, the book can be read online by chapters, or it can be downloaded for offline reading in e-book formats. I suspect the latter will be relevant for most only after the book is completed, but just in case, I keep this file up to date. And while I’m at it, I’ll remind you that I am always glad to receive your donations and comments. Regarding this book, I welcome comments even more, as they can help improve the text.

An ethological approach to the definition of aggression, violence, and self-defense

Libertarian Band has released a video on the ethological approach to defining the concepts of aggression, violence, and self-defense. Ethology, as a science that studies animal behavior and serves as a link between biological and sociological sciences in the study of human behavior, is a fairly precise tool for solving this problem. The ethological approach can provide us with clear answers regarding what should be considered aggression and violence, as well as where the boundaries of self-defense lie.

I recommend everyone watch this video and share it with others, so that there will be less confusion in the future during conversations about aggression, violence, and self-defense.

A book about ancap – analyzing the imperfection of man

After venting about the sudden outbreak of war, I took a bit of a break, and now I am gradually returning to my routine. I have started the second section of the second part of the book on ancap—it sounds soothingly boring and mundane, exactly what the doctor ordered.

Right out of the gate, I wrote a short introduction to the section, a chapter on the fact that a person is not fully a legal subject (ancap and children are an eternal theme), as well as a chapter on the fact that humans are mortal, and this also hinders the triumphant march of ancap.

Humans have many other shortcomings, but I will leave the dwelling on them for next time, and perhaps then I’ll get around to discussing what we should do with all of this.

How even a small military conflict can lead to a catastrophe

Voluntarist, Bitarch

During the invasion of Russian troops into the territory of Ukraine, an incident occurred that could have ended with extremely catastrophic consequences. We are talking about the events at the Zaporizhzhia NPP – the largest power plant in Europe. The details of this event are not so important; the main point here is that military actions were taking place around the nuclear power plant itself. Perhaps the probability of a catastrophe was extremely low, but it was still not zero. And had it happened, tens of millions of lives would have been at risk, as it would have been much worse than the well-known nuclear catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP. Also, information has now emerged about biolaboratories located on the territory of Ukraine. The WHO recommended that Ukraine destroy dangerous pathogens to prevent their possible leakage.

Should this not demonstrate what the problem is with violence as a method of solving problems and achieving goals, and why we need to fight against it? War or any other violent conflict can lead to a catastrophe if it hits a nuclear plant, a warehouse with dangerous chemicals, or a biolaboratory with samples of deadly viruses, especially those of artificial origin, which were kept for strictly controlled experiments and for which it is unknown what to do if they suddenly break out.

As we can see, it is not even necessary to intentionally use nuclear, chemical, biological, or any other weapon of mass destruction to achieve exactly this mass destruction. In the modern world with a heap of dangerous technologies and means used at various enterprises and facilities, it can become merely an accidental result of even a small armed clash, not to mention a conflict as large-scale as the one currently taking place between Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, violence and war are extremely unacceptable; it is necessary to fight against all manifestations of violence immediately and everywhere, throughout the world. Those who are not in the territory of the conflicting countries likely believe they are completely safe. But this is absolutely not the case, for in the modern world, no one is safe as long as any violent conflicts remain possible.