I hope you didn’t miss me too much while the channel was on pause for a while — I have been very busy.
More than a year ago, as part of his Liberty Education Project, Vladimir Zolotorev began posting a translation of David Friedman’s 2019 book Legal Systems Very Different from Our Own — an extremely detailed answer to the question of how courts could operate not only under ancap, but in any conceivable conditions. For my part, I posted the original and published the translated chapters on my page. In November 2020, however, the translation stalled after the publication of four chapters.
And recently, Dima Kovalenko, who translated those four chapters, contacted me and suggested that I continue the work in his place. I gladly agreed. To get started, I took a relatively short chapter on the legal system of my favorite Athens during the time of classical democracy, and now I am happy to present to you the translation of this chapter. I have also formatted all five chapters into an epub and posted it on my page as well. Footnotes for the four old chapters are currently missing — apparently, they were not translated. I will add them in time. Please test whether the book reads normally for you — I tried formatting it in the newer epub3 format, but if it turns out that it is not sufficiently supported by your e-readers, then there is no point in overcomplicating things and it would be better to return to epub2; the book does not contain complex layout for which the new format would be absolutely necessary.
I would also be glad if someone would take on creating a cover for the book — for now, I am using the original English one, but the final edition will clearly require something else.
A certain Belarusian libertarian, known in narrow circles and who changes nicknames frequently enough that there is no point in remembering them, recently posted a solid article on the subject on Telegraph.
A brief list of the article’s key takes from the author himself (what a clever boy, he took care of everything):
1) There are ethical libertarians and “sausage” libertarians
2) Sausage libertarians are useless or harmful to libertarianism and are prone to drifting toward other political views
3) The opposite of a sausage libertarian is an ethical libertarian
4) An ethical libertarian differs from a sausage one by possessing a libertarian mindset and a libertarian framework
5) Most libertarian activity in attracting new members is focused on attracting sausage libertarians and building a libertarian framework, as well as transferring it to ethical libertarians
6) A libertarian mindset is determined at a young age, and to increase the number of ethical libertarians, one should create it in other people’s children through specific practices.
7) Our enemies deal with the mindsets of other people’s children, while libertarians do not
8) And they should
In other words, the author suggests that we stop denying the insinuations that libertarians supposedly love children and, moreover, have a huge interest specifically in other people’s children—and instead, start confirming these insinuations, but in their own libertarian way. Like: everyone thought that “teaching” was a euphemism for “fucking,” but he actually makes children libertarians.
If, after reading the article, you share its conclusions, I await an influx of libertarians into children’s sports sections and creative studios (well, not state schools, for heaven’s sake), the organization of children’s libertarian hiking trips, the hiring of children for part-time jobs, and other useful practices.
Recently, some American dating sites came up with an interesting idea regarding how to encourage people to get vaccinated against coronavirus. They decided to add the ability to indicate one’s vaccination status in their profile, while providing certain bonuses to those who do so as early as possible. Accordingly, when searching for a partner on such sites, it is now possible to find out if they are vaccinated, which for many may serve as an indicator of responsibility and an understanding of the danger of the uncontrolled spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This, essentially, will stimulate dating site users to get vaccinated.
Of course, this idea may seem contradictory to some. Firstly, it could be argued that this is merely an attempt to control people, restrict their freedom, and apply a slave label. But specifically in the case of coronavirus, saying so would be an exaggeration—this is a temporary problem, and once it is solved and society begins to treat covid exactly like seasonal flu, such a status will cease to be relevant and there will be no demand for it. Secondly, the effectiveness of such an initiative itself can be questioned—there is no reason to believe that many people take coronavirus vaccination seriously, meaning they are indifferent to it. Moreover, some view it negatively.
But this idea could be used in the fight against violence by combining it with the concept of sexual selection. Fighting violence would become quite easy if people prone to it were denied relationships and, as a consequence, the ability to procreate. If such an idea gains public popularity, the number of rapists and the level of violence will be drastically reduced in the next generation. Along with the promotion of eradicating violence, a status indicating a propensity for violence could be used.
For example, a person could take certain tests that confirm their non-violent nature (more precisely, the presence of a strong version of the violence-inhibiting Lorenz mechanism) and use the results to establish a corresponding status in their profile. And if gene therapy against violence emerges, it would be possible to create a status with the same meaning as the coronavirus vaccination status on American dating sites. This would be especially useful for people who exhibited violent behavior in the past, as confirmation that they will never return to violence again.
There is certainly no reason to doubt the necessity and utility of such an initiative, as it is another way to fight violence, which leads to various negative consequences, including catastrophic ones. The effectiveness of this method should also be high, as most people will not want to deal with (and even less so have close relationships with) someone if they know in advance that this person is definitely prone to violence or likely to be prone to it, because they did not bother to confirm their non-violence while others did. Thus, everyone who wants to start a relationship, a family, and have children will have an incentive to confirm their non-violence or fight their own violent tendencies. And those people who have such tendencies but do not consider them a problem will lose this opportunity and will not be able to pass on a violent legacy.
Many liberally minded citizens criticize the Russian authorities for failing to take proper sanitary measures against the coronavirus. They claim that at that rare moment when a firm hand of authority was actually needed, it did not appear; instead, the authorities carelessly and unprofessionally let the situation run its course, introducing some local restrictions and leaving measures up to the regions, etc., causing the epidemic to spread to terrifying proportions. Meanwhile, under ancap, the adoption of any restrictive, mandatory measures is fundamentally impossible! How should this be handled?
Minarchist
Using the current bedlam as an example, we can see very clearly: states are incapable of dealing with a pandemic because while one man’s war is another’s windfall—for politicians, the more global the mess, the more convenient the opportunity to profit from government procurement, and the more convenient the opportunity to restrict the freedom of citizens. If people themselves are whining for a firm hand, how can anyone resist the urge to shove that firm hand deeper into the citizen’s pocket?
Let’s compare this with ancap, where states are absent, all ultimate responsibility for one’s own health lies with the people, and if you don’t take care of yourself, you have only yourself to blame.
Some would have been entirely voluntarily insured against infectious diseases and accidents; some, having heirs, would have also insured their lives. If ancap has existed on the planet for a long time, then such insured individuals would make up some stable, significant percentage. But since such a misfortune has occurred that quite a few people are beginning to be infected by a previously unknown virus, this will generate additional demand for health insurance, and the prices for such insurance will spike.
Different insurance companies may act using different means. Some simply pay for treatment under policies within the limits of the insurance premium. Others realize that if nothing is done, all reserves will be spent on paying insurance claims, and to avoid bankruptcy—they should incentivize clients not to get infected. They begin offering payment for every day of self-isolation, plus remote supply of everything necessary (especially to high-risk groups). A third group of companies invests in the development of a treatment protocol. A fourth—in the development of vaccines.
But insurance companies are not the only players in the market. Pharma companies, even without insurance, understand that they can make a lot of money now, and they also begin seeking remedies for the new plague, or increasing the production of existing and well-working ones (more accurately, those in demand on the market, which in general is not the same thing).
In short, entrepreneurial initiative, unrestrained by government shackles, revitalizes sectors of the economy related to health care. What happens to other sectors? And what could possibly happen to them? Who will forbid tourists from flying to a quiet, pleasant place for a vacation? They get insured so as not to wander in an unfamiliar place in confusion about where and how to get treatment if something happens—and they fly. Who will forbid restaurants from operating? No one will forbid them. True, people themselves may enter with caution—which means they need to launch advertising about how safe the establishment is: here is a hand sanitizer, here are tables on an open terrace, here are waiters in masks.
And so on. What will be the result? Simply that throughout the world, the pandemic will proceed roughly as it did in Sweden, perhaps just a little bit better.
And, of course, no one will be able to prevent an investigation into where the virus came from. And if it turns out to be the work of some private laboratory, those guys will go bankrupt from lawsuits. Naturally, payments will not go to everyone, but only to those who managed to sue first—well, no one stopped them from searching, it’s only fair. As for other laboratories, realizing that they will now all be suspected, they will be forced to introduce very advanced standards of openness, otherwise, they won’t be able to work peacefully. And what is there to hide, if intellectual property is not valued under ancap? This means one must work not for the sake of rapid patenting, but for the sake of rapid implementation, in conditions where everyone sees each other and everyone adopts what they can from each other. This is a perfectly fair race, and it is strange to think that they would somehow stop participating in it due to the absence of patents.
– Vaša ancap-kafa – Hvala vam puno (translated from Montenegrin: What, an epidemic, really? Then I’ll have another cup.)
I’m continuing to work on my book. I’ve finished the section on power, breaking the final long sheet into separate pages for better layout consistency, and to make referencing and commenting more convenient. The new chapters are about meritocracy and anarchy as two basic approaches that can conventionally be used to break down attempts to solve societal problems.
I have also formatted the book in epub, and now the latest version will always be available at this link.
The further work plan has changed slightly; I’m thinking of dedicating the third section to the market, and from there steer towards ancap.
As usual, I’m waiting for your comments and donations to encourage the work. And, by the way, if anyone wants to create a cover for the book, I would be very happy to see your options. A pensive girl illustrates the writing process well, but is clearly not suitable for the final product.
Based on Konrad Lorenz’s theory of the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (Lorenz mechanism or LM), James Blair’s model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), as well as a multitude of supporting evidence, including neurophysiological and genetic data, it can be confidently stated that the ability of some people to commit violence against other people is the result of a pathological impairment in the functioning of the innate violence inhibitor (LM/VIM). And since this is a pathology, it must be combated, as with any other pathology, namely through its treatment [1].
Since the impairment in the functioning of the LM/VIM is of genetic origin, treatment requires gene therapy intervention. At the neurophysiological level, specific areas of the brain are responsible for the functioning of this mechanism, which means we need to perform gene therapy on brain cells. However, the possibility of conducting such gene therapy is questioned. There is also an opinion that gene therapy cannot correct neurophysiological impairments. However, all these doubts can be easily dispelled, which I will now do.
In the past, gene therapy on brain cells was impossible because the viral vector with genetic material could not cross the blood-brain barrier—the protective filter between the circulatory and nervous systems. However, in 2003, a group of researchers found a solution to this problem, which involves using a vector small enough to be able to cross this barrier [2]. Later, a wide variety of tools for performing gene therapy on brain cells appeared, using different types of vectors and the genetic material they transport [3].
Fine, gene therapy can be performed on brain cells. But can it cure neurophysiological impairments? Let’s look at a practical example. There is a hereditary genetic disease called “Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency,” the symptoms of which include: mental retardation, inability to fully control the body, decreased muscle tone, seizures, and many others. It is caused by a mutation of the DDC gene, leading to a deficiency of key neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin).
However, quite recently (the corresponding study was published on July 12, 2021), specialists developed a gene therapy to treat this disease. A drug with a viral vector carrying the corrected version of the gene is injected directly into the patient’s midbrain, where it distributes through the tissues, and they gradually become capable of producing the missing proteins. This gene therapy has proven its safety and efficacy. Seven patients aged four to nine years, within 18 months after the injection, were freed from seizures, began trying to speak and smile, and two were even able to walk with assistance, which was considered fundamentally impossible for such a diagnosis [4].
Of course, at the moment, gene therapy is a complex and expensive technology that requires further development. However, there are absolutely no reasons to believe that the treatment of neurophysiological impairments and the restoration of nervous system functions (including the brain) is a fundamentally unsolvable task. Current research, on the contrary, proves the possibility of this. This means that the argument about the impossibility of treating LM/VIM dysfunction, based on such a claim, is incorrect.
Currently, many companies, such as Apple, Tesla, and John Deere, design their products so that in the event of a breakdown, the user cannot repair them, even if they know how. For example, a farmer could buy a certain part for a John Deere tractor for $100 and would have no trouble replacing it. However, the software installed on the tractor will prevent such a procedure, and the farmer will either have to pay $5,000 for the manufacturer’s service or install pirated software. In essence, the farmer does not own the tractor but merely takes it on an indefinite lease. How does libertarianism view such a policy?
themouse1_ from Bulbaland
The examples provided are particular cases of the platform economy. Similarly, an app developer is forced to adapt to the requirements of the company producing the operating system for which the app is developed. Likewise, a hired worker on a plantation in Brazil a century ago was obliged to buy groceries only from the shop run by the plantation owner, and in Soviet Russia, a collective farmer could only redeem his work-days, again, at a specific village store.
In short, these are not entirely market cases. Can such quasi-monopolistic situations arise in a completely free economy? Yes, but they are unstable. The emergence of a profit source significantly higher than the market average leads to others wanting to imitate such success, and soon competition levels the margin: platform owners, competing for the customer, begin to spend more on maintaining their loyalty.
Libertarianism proposes removing politics from the economy. Will this make John Deere more reasonable? Not immediately. Simply put, they will no longer have the ability to sue the farmer for installing pirated software. Therefore, wanting their authorized service to not go completely under, they will lower repair prices. Moreover, some Japanese or Belarusian tractors will start being imported duty-free, so the consumer will have a real choice and will be able to acquire the solution that maximizes their profit from operating the tractor.
Similarly, without the ability to force a worker to eat expensive slop in the factory canteen, without the ability to forbid installing apps from outside the app store on a smartphone, without the ability to punish a kiosk owner for moving under the protection of another security firm—the owners of all these platforms will find that racketeering practices work worse and worse, and they must get used to acting within the framework of fair competition. It’s fine, they’ll get used to it.
The friendly channel Bitcoin Translated, which specializes in translating important texts about bitcoin, recently posted on its website the final version of the translation of Ian Pritzkers’s book “Inventing Bitcoin”. I don’t like the translation of the title—I don’t understand the habit of translating “-ing” constructions as gerunds in such cases; it doesn’t sound Russian at all. I would have translated it as “Inventing Bitcoin” [in the sense of ‘Let’s invent bitcoin’]. Otherwise, the book is good, clear, illustrated, and fully ready to be absorbed by the brain.
To make this easier via phones, I formatted the book in epub format; download it and enjoy. I will be happy to receive donations from both the Bitcoin Translated team and the readers.
Despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of people are actually capable of committing brutal violence, politically, supporters of non-violence ideas are currently in the minority. The majority, at least passively, consider the use of force justified in the implementation of state coercion, and some people even actively resort to using this tool of force in the pursuit of their goals. And how can the ideas of non-violence be promoted in such a position?
To do this, let us consider how some other ideas that were very unpopular in society were promoted, for example, the ideas of the LGBT movement (it does not matter how you personally feel about this; moreover, if you believe that movements of this kind must be stopped by resorting to violent measures, then you are simply a violent person—realize this fact and reconsider your outlook on life). Of course, there are relatively few representatives of this movement in society, which means they simply would not have had the chance to defeat all their enemies at once. But that is not necessary; it is not essential to deal with everyone at once, it is enough to choose one goal. Suppose a specific business began to implement a policy of discrimination against LGBT representatives, or some person spoke about them in an extremely negative key. By gathering together, the representatives of the movement have enough strength to organize a campaign of harassment against a single subject. Of course, this subject, faced with strong condemnation, will begin to lose their reputation; if it is a business, its income will be jeopardized. Seeing this, other opponents of the ideas of this movement will not want to risk their money and reputation, and therefore will make certain concessions. This is how the LGBT movement managed to promote its cultural agenda and achieve recognition in many countries—in fact, in most developed countries, where half a century ago homosexuals were afraid to even walk down the street holding hands.
A similar strategy could be used in the promotion of the ideas of non-violence. All supporters of violence cannot be defeated at once, especially considering that a significant part of society, albeit passively, is still on their side (moreover, they themselves are biologically incapable of initiating violence, as most of the population have a strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, but this does not prevent them from having certain views and morally supporting other people who are more prone to violence). But, again, there is no need to fight everyone all at once. It is enough to choose one subject who advocates for violence and organize a campaign of harassment against them, as a result of which they will suffer certain losses. Other subjects, seeing this, will make concessions to us.
One of the concrete implementations of this strategy could be the conclusion of non-violence contracts. For example, deciding to do business with a certain organization or person, one can demand the inclusion of a clause in the contract stating that in the event of disputed situations, the parties cannot resort to violent measures of influence, i.e., cannot turn to state judicial and law enforcement structures. Instead, the resolution of the conflict must be carried out exclusively within the framework of non-violent reputational and financial influence. If the other party agrees to such a condition, it will create a positive precedent that will greatly help in the further popularization of non-violence ideas. If they refuse, then they can be condemned as a supporter of violence according to the model described above.
Thus, even with a small number of active supporters of non-violence ideas, it is possible to effectively deal with a certain number of supporters of violence. And those remaining will simply decide to make concessions in order not to lose their business or avoid ending up in social isolation. Over time, the agenda of non-violence will become recognized and generally accepted, which is what we strive for!
In the spring, at the suggestion of Alex Kotov (channel Causa Arcana), I started a mastodon account. Then, due to moving, I didn’t have time for it, but now I’ve decided to start using it again. With a limit of 500 characters per post, this network only allows writing in the format of extended tweets, which suits me very poorly. I cannot promise that I will maintain it regularly—at least tweets post themselves and don’t ask for much. Anyway, we’ll see.
I also had to set up an Instagram. The thing is, I help with supplying materials for the Montelibero Instagram, and in this nightmare of a social network, you can’t even look at what someone has posted without your own account. To keep the account from being completely dead, I will post photos with brief remarks there—consider it a free demo version of my channel on Boosty; in that paid channel, posts about my adventures here are much more detailed and comprehensive.
The full list of social networks where my materials are presented is consolidated on the corresponding page.
I am not a great entrepreneur, and I am poor at selling myself. Psychologically, I feel most comfortable doing the work first and then giving those who wish the opportunity to say thanks via a donation. But this model only brings in any money if you regularly remind people of this opportunity, and I interpret that as being pushy. As a result, the project doesn’t bring nearly enough money to live on, which means I must either devote more time and attention to finding other sources of income or more actively monetize my own project. To start, I want to gather feedback on what content you are actually willing to pay for. The survey is open; you can add your own options. A promise is not a marriage contract Participating in the survey does not entail financial obligations. Nevertheless, I would be glad if the answers were sufficiently serious. I would also welcome detailed comments with advice and suggestions.
