How do you feel about being forced to participate in a market economy?

Input data: the team of Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau sent letters to 14 large property owners, threatening to forcibly buy out 194 vacant residential units owned by them if they do not put the apartments on the market.

Anonymous question

Of course, the provided input data is incomplete. Here, for example, is a little more information about rental market regulations in Barcelona, gathered from a quick Google search:

So, look at what is happening. First, the Olympic Games are held in the city; for this occasion, the state pours serious money into increasing the city’s tourist appeal. Tourists flood the city. Demand for short-term rentals spikes. Residents who rent housing themselves begin to grumble: rental prices have risen for them. Locals who are not tied to the tourism market also grumble: noisy tourists are wandering everywhere, and there is no room to move. The government listens to the voters’ opinion and begins to tighten the screws. Time and again, it demotivates property owners from renting to tourists—at high prices and for short terms—and instead demands they rent to locals—cheaply and for the long term.

What do property owners do when they realize that renting to anyone under the current rules is unprofitable? They freeze the business and wait for favorable conditions. Or they rent completely “under the table,” so that officially the housing stands empty. What does the government do? It begins to “force” them to the market, demanding that the housing be listed for long-term rental at regulated rates, threatening otherwise to forcibly buy out their property at prices set by the government itself.

With exactly the same success, one could talk about forcing peasants to the market who, for example, are forbidden from selling what they grew personally at the city market and are instead required to hand it over for pennies to wholesalers appointed from above.

How can I feel about this? Naturally, strongly negative. There is no need to call a state plan a “market”; it only introduces unnecessary confusion.

The Barcelona case shows very well how even a seemingly single benevolent government intervention (investments in infrastructure for the Olympic Games) leads to a market distortion, which causes public discontent and provokes further strengthening of government regulations. So, the best answer to the question of how the state can help you still remains the eternally relevant answer: Laissez faire et laissez passer.

Why does the forest burn every year in Russia and particularly in the Republic of Karelia? The number of fires per day amounts to several dozen, and this year it is already over 250, while in neighboring Finland, Sweden, or Switzerland, these are isolated cases.

OpenKoder

Taking this opportunity, I want to say thank you for the regular reposts of my materials on Twitter)))

As for the question, I believe the reason is roughly the same as why far fewer people die in earthquakes in California than in Haiti. It is because of poverty, which in turn stems from the poor organization of society.

And I am not even talking about the size of the state, because it is difficult to say offhand in which country the state interferes more in people’s lives—Sweden or Russia, California or Haiti. Any society has as much state as it resisted poorly, and mainly in those areas where the resistance was particularly ineffective.

In Russia, the main strategy for resisting the state has always been flight; therefore, people here are effective at gathering something and using it quickly—be it mushrooms from a state forest or machinery from a state factory for scrap metal—while owning real estate is always a zone of vulnerability, so they don’t get attached to it and don’t take care of it. Who would take care of state forests, and why? Who would put out the fires, and why?

In Sweden, for example, you cannot flee from the state, and people had to cling to the land. As a result, the state there is more effective at collecting taxes, since everyone sits neatly in their places, everyone is counted, and everyone is accounted for. Life costs a pretty penny and is entirely scheduled, but the forests do not burn.

I have now moved to a country where, on the one hand, private property is reasonably well protected—and this is not so much because of the state as because those are the interests of society; it is profitable for people to sell it dearly to foreigners. On the other hand, state intervention is tolerated quite reluctantly, and quite often it puts on a brave face while playing a bad game, simply legalizing over time what people did for themselves at their own risk. Forests here still burn from time to time, but gradually there is less and less ownerless junk.

If we reason specifically about the forest, then to reduce the number of fires, it is very important that it is not just private, but also belongs to owners who are not too large. A large owner, at best, will make quarterly clearings, and if lucky, will also plow firebreaks. If very lucky, they will perform selective logging and remove deadwood. But generally, for them, the concentration of production and square-nest thinking is effective. But a small owner will live in the forest themselves and will build a paved road to their farmstead. Such a road will not only serve as a firebreak but will also allow all necessary equipment to be delivered almost instantaneously anywhere to put out a blaze. And since putting out the fire will be economically effective, it will be put out.

If you invest in the business, invest in the fight against violence as well

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Doing business and any financial activity are always associated with certain risks. Many will first think of risks leading to the loss of invested funds, however, that is not the issue we are interested in. We will consider the risk that violence, up to and including liquidation, may be applied to a person engaged in such activity. I think you have heard stories about how some businessmen were “taken to the forest” by their more violent and gangster-like competitors in the market. Frequently, a government may eliminate a person for “unacceptable” economic activity. An illustrative example is the recent story of the death of John McAfee, who had some problems with paying taxes and activities related to cryptocurrency operations, and who, as he claimed before his death, was threatened by representatives of the US authorities.

Of course, some will say that problems can be avoided by strictly playing by the rules of the state power and stronger market agents. But these rules are established unilaterally and can be changed at any moment to destroy your activity or make its conduct impossible. The mere fact of conducting some activity may be unacceptable to those capable of committing violence against you. In the best case, your business will be stopped due to the threat of violence from ordinary or stationary (“state”) gangsters, resulting in large financial losses. In the worst case, you will simply become another person who “committed suicide.”

Anyone engaged in any economic activity, especially if it involves running a business or investing in certain assets, finds it beneficial and necessary to invest in the fight against violence. Only by eradicating violence in human society can its risks be eliminated and one can finally peacefully attend to their affairs without fearing tomorrow. Investing in the fight against violence is clearly worth it to simultaneously preserve both your activity and your life!

Second month in Montenegro, a brief report

In the first report, I shared my first impressions of the country and made plans for further exploration.

Money. As I expected, the main expense was the purchase of a scooter. While I initially budgeted about 500 euros for this, it turned out that I had to shell out 750 for the vehicle itself, and with registration and intermediary services, it came to 860 euros in total. I paid the required 120 euros for housing, and it also became clear how much electricity costs. It’s not cheap: 22 euros (10 cents per kilowatt-hour). Grocery stores cost 100 euros, while I spent as much as 78 in various establishments, meaning, again, there is room to save. I switched my phone to a cheaper plan; it was 15 euros a month, now it’s 10. 30 euros went toward clothes, about ten for buses, and 32 for gasoline. Gasoline here is insanely expensive, 1.4 euros per liter, but the scooter consumes very little, and the money spent was enough for me to travel half the country, if not more. In total, I had to spend 1360 euros, and I expect that this is definitely the last month where I have to spend so much. Income during this time amounted to only 280 euros(((

Work at Montelibero. During this time, the company was registered, but I am still not officially registered as an employee and have not received my boravak (residency permit). However, the process has started, so at least I no longer have to pay the tourist tax. Road construction has begun, so I drive there from time to time to monitor the process, after which it may be necessary, for example, to encourage the contractor to act a bit less slowly. Several project participants visited, wishing to get acquainted with the country as part of a purely tourist visit. I was required to meet with them, show them the plot, and generally help them form an impression of the country, if they needed it. This worked out best with Valery Utrosin, who, following the tour of the plot, even decided to buy some more land.

Scooter. In principle, the roads in Montenegro are very good, but riding is still exceptionally difficult: mountains, sharp turns, narrow passages, and rocks can fall from the surrounding cliffs. I fell twice. The first time I got away with a broken mirror, but the second time I was quite badly injured myself; I am currently recovering, and the scooter is waiting for me in Herceg Novi. In the future, I will likely limit my activity to relatively simple roads where my driving skills will be sufficient for accident-free riding.

Montenegrin Medicine. This left the most unpleasant impressions. The ambulance will not come; you have to get to the clinic yourself. Doctors first look not at the person’s problem, but at their documents. X-rays are not available in every city; as a result, I still don’t know if I broke something or just bruised it. Since there are also many complaints about how casts are applied in local clinics, I see no point in paying for an X-ray, as no additional treatment other than a cast is expected in case of a fracture.

Trips around Montenegro. After buying the scooter, their geography expanded significantly. I visited Ulcinj, Ada Bojana, Lake Skadar, drove through the Morača valley to the very headwaters, visited Žabljak and Durmitor National Park, saw the beautiful salt lake near Nikšić, the Bay of Kotor, and Herceg Novi. Although the country is small, it took me 7 hours to get to Žabljak, and these 200 km are apparently the limit of my travel distance. I categorically recommend everyone who goes to Montenegro, even for just a week, not to limit themselves to a single coastal town, but to travel around the country; it is very diverse and beautiful. I especially liked old Ulcinj and Durmitor, but almost every town and corner has its own special charm.

I post detailed trip reports on my paid personal channel — they have little to do with ancap, but they create a nice bonus for those who find it appropriate to fund me.

In a month, I may post a third monthly report, and then I will definitely stop doing this to avoid becoming monotonous.

What does the AES offer as a replacement for the Central Bank and the dollar?

Anonymous question

There is no consensus on this issue.

There are hardcore supporters of returning to the gold standard with 100% reserves. The arguments of this camp were well articulated by Javier Vernón Cortés (de Soto) in the book “Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles”. In short: there are time deposits, where a person deposits money for a specific term, and the bank has the right to invest it wherever it deems necessary, paying interest for this; and then there are demand deposits, where a person deposits money for safekeeping, retaining the right to withdraw it at any moment—in this case, the person should pay for the convenient service, and the bank has no right to do anything with such deposits other than store them. If demand deposits are lent by the bank to someone as a loan, then this is fraud, and divine wrath shall descend upon the bank owners. Thus, based on this strictly legal approach, supporters of the gold standard demand the return of monetary gold circulation, as well as gold-backed banknotes and gold-backed settlement accounts—then the credit expansion carried out by central banks will end, and humanity will have a single deflationary currency, as it did for a relatively short time in the 19th century, and developed quite well.

There are supporters of free banking. They argue that the main thing is to abolish central banks and overall regulation of the banking sector; let the banks decide for themselves what money to emit and how to back it, and then let the market decide which currencies are actually more convenient for people. This idea was defended in slightly different forms by Friedrich Hayek in the book “The Denationalization of Money,” and David Friedman also touched upon this theme in “The Machinery of Freedom” (although he does not belong to the AES). The forecasts of free banking supporters also differ slightly. Some argue that everything will eventually come back to the same gold standard with 100% reserves, because those who want to defraud will quickly find that their reserves begin to melt as trust in their currency is lost. Others say that 100% reserves are not needed by anyone, and if a currency offers convenience of settlement and reasonable emission rates, then no one will worry about bank runs.

Finally, there are the prophets of hyper-bitcoinization, among whom I mention Saifedean Ammous and his book “The Bitcoin Standard.” He argues that due to the gradual growth of the network effect, as well as the stock-to-flow ratio, Bitcoin will become the global measure of value. Further, again, there are options. The first—there will be nothing but Bitcoin, the great and luminous, except that it will operate in different protocol layers according to several different rules. The second option—alternative means of payment will persist, but the basis of their value will be backing by Bitcoin reserves. The reserves might be 100%, or they might not. The main argument in favor of this particular scenario is that here, no one is abolishing central banks by any decrees; they will supposedly wither away on their own.

The bleak future is cancelled — why a genetically-fixed division into omnipotent “elites” and feeble “serfs” is impossible

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Previously, we have already examined the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight violence. In short, they make their money by selling products that must be constantly improved technologically. In effect, new technologies are the source of their profit. However, as technologies develop, they become increasingly dangerous. In the future, it can be expected that, for example, even typical consumer electronics will require ultra-high-capacity energy sources due to the rapid expansion of functionality, which could then be used for violent purposes, including terrorist acts. Or someone could use widely available DNA/RNA synthesizers to begin creating dangerous viruses. As a result, violence hinders further progress, which is critically important for the survival of humanity as a whole, and also becomes a barrier to profit for private companies. This is precisely why it is in their interest to fight violence.

Of course, one might hear the argument that large corporations and elites are only interested in fighting violence among ordinary people, so that they cannot balance the potential for violence in their own favor and threaten them. In this view, technology is in the background and means nothing. I do not dispute that this was relevant in the past, and even in the 20th century, since dangerous technologies (such as nuclear weapons) were held only by major governments. However, now the issue of dangerous technologies is becoming more relevant than it has ever been before.

Alright, let’s assume the elites decide to strip ordinary people of their capacity for violence, for example, through gene therapy implemented “from above,” so that they can safely use dangerous technologies and not even think about committing acts of violence. At the same time, they would reserve violence for themselves, in order to permanently secure an endless potential for violence and maintain the ability to continue a violent policy toward the population, promoting their interests through government security forces.

But let us not forget—the elites themselves mean absolutely nothing without the security agents who serve them. We have already discussed this in the material titled “Our Goal is the Elimination of the Violence of the Pawns”. If gene therapy against violence becomes common knowledge, it could be used against security agents in direct clashes, for example, by firing a dart containing the corresponding vaccine at them. But suppose that gene therapy is implemented from the top down and ordinary people do not yet have the opportunity to obtain or recreate this technology. Even then, this state of affairs would change nothing.

The point is that the security agents working for such elites are also ordinary people, part of the rest of the population. Protecting the elite is just their job; outside of work, they lead ordinary lives, including using new technological gadgets. Consequently, the elites face the following problem: if they want to maintain their security functions, they must leave the violent tendencies in the agents who work for them. But these agents could also, at any moment, use dangerous technologies for violent purposes—for example, if someone among them is no longer satisfied with the policy imposed from above, or simply due to an unrestrained desire to commit violence. This, in turn, forces the elites either to slow down technological progress—which would result in loss of profit, the futile consumption of limited resources, and a decrease in humanity’s chances of survival—or to implement gene therapy against violence for everyone, including the agents working for them. I believe that when the moment comes to choose, they will find the second option more acceptable, as they all want to continue living and improving their living conditions, even if it means losing the ability to conduct a policy of force.

Power

I spent a very long time preparing to write another section of my book about ancap, and finally put together two short chapters on power. Their main virtue is that they are stunningly short; I consider this a great achievement of mine. If only I could always express myself so concisely…

I hope that in the next pass I will close the topic of power, or perhaps even finish the first part of the book, which, in essence, should briefly encompass the entire theory of ancap. After that, I will gather a collection of the main interesting practical cases and talk about the ways to implement all this magnificence.

Montelibero News, Issue 4

In the previous issue, I frightened you with photos of thickets—saying that we were buying the plot for a libertarian condominium, and that not only was there no road, you couldn’t even get through on foot. Much has changed since then.

At first, it was complete improvisation: learning on the fly how to use a chainsaw and a trimmer, we cleared a pedestrian path to our plots, as well as passages along their boundaries. After that, a hired surveyor marked the cadastral plan points on the terrain and handed us an elaborat—an official, legally binding scheme of the plots, as well as the municipal land reserved for the road.

Next, a contractor was hired for the first stage of road construction. It is planned that a four-meter-wide strip 900m long will be leveled using an excavator—thus, the road passing through our plots will connect the lower highway from Bar to Ulcinj with the upper highway from Bar to Škodar. However, the width of the municipal land strip is not sufficient everywhere to lay a four-meter road. In one place, an agreement was reached with the plot owner, and the road has already been laid there. In another, negotiations are still ongoing. If we are not successful, there will be a small section of road two and a half meters wide, which is generally not fatal.

This is what the future road looks like after the initial clearing of thickets and leveling of the route

The neighbors, realizing that laying a road past their territories means an increase in price, are happy and are even starting to help. Near the lower end of the road, they are paying for improvements, including concreting the road section and a parking area. Another neighbor offered crushed stone for filling via self-pickup—we will most likely take him up on this offer. In short, this autumn, it is quite likely that construction can already be launched on the plots themselves.

And this means that it is the perfect time to buy a piece of land in the future condominium. For now, most of the territory belongs to the Montelibero fund, and the fund is ready to reduce its share in the land by selling land tokens to those wishing to settle in the future village. After the final clearing of the plot, it will be divided into shares, which can then be officially registered as private property; however, the sooner you enter MTLCITY tokens, the cheaper the square meter will eventually be for you—which is logical, as early investors want a premium for the risk. Instructions on the project’s tokenomics and on how to become a co-owner are available on its website.

By the way, about the fund. Recently, a personnel section appeared on the project website. It lists those co-investors of the project who are already ready to state this openly. Several investors remain anonymous for now.

So, some bought MTLCITY land tokens immediately, while others invested in the fund, which bought up the remainder of these tokens to close the land purchase deal on time. Now the fund is selling the land tokens held on its balance sheet. What will it do with the proceeds? Naturally, invest them in other businesses. So far, a relatively small amount has been invested in a trading project owned by one of the fund’s founders. As a result, the fund has begun paying weekly dividends to all MTL token holders, generated from the profits of this investment. Trading investments are high-risk, so the fund is unlikely to significantly increase its contribution, and as money from land sales comes in, it will start investing in a land development company. However, if you have other interesting proposals, please contact the main project chat, and you will then be redirected to the specialized one for business ideas.

Also, in the time since the project started, quite a few libertarians have visited Montenegro on tourist trips, wanting to look closer at the country and our project, and they continue to arrive from time to time—but haphazardly and with their own cultural programs: some for the beach, some for the mountains, some for parties. We very much hope that they all liked the country and will soon move here permanently. And for those who liked the country but are not ready to move for some important reasons, we plan to create a regular festival so that we no longer gather haphazardly. Ideas and offers of help for the festival should also be written in the main chat, and then we will move to a closed thematic one.

Do you not want gene therapy against violence to ever be developed at all? It is not at all necessary for our success. Only I fear these scenarios will personally be very displeasing to you!

Bitarch in response to article Ancap-tyan

Some people say they are ready to personally hinder the development of gene therapy against violence (to strengthen Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism, also known as VIM in English-language research). Well, that is their right. We will not remind them that they are unlikely to succeed in hindering development in the real world, as most scientists ideologically oppose violence. But let us imagine that they did succeed, or that the development of this gene therapy proved too complex for the current technological level and, within our lifetime, gene therapy against violence was never created.

First, let us note that the absence of gene therapy in no way denies the fact of the existence of ML/VIM in the species Homo sapiens and its varying strength in different people. This has already been proven by authoritative scientists and will undoubtedly become a generally recognized fact sooner or later. As will the path by which ML/VIM is strengthened under the pressure of natural selection. Consequently, without the development of corrective gene therapy, the fate of people prone to violence will be extremely dismal. They will find themselves in a situation where they will literally pray to God for this gene therapy to appear as soon as possible!

1) The mildest, libertarian scenario. When the understanding of ML/VIM enters the mainstream and begins to be covered in the media, activists will immediately appear who will intentionally provoke everyone with words, clothing, and gestures, and immediately destroy those who succumb to provocation within the framework of self-defense. In essence, they will repeat the “Masquerade,” which, without even knowing the theory of Lorenz on which we base ourselves, was successfully conducted by Marshal Zhukov in post-war Odessa to “eradicate crime.” Why is this approach libertarian? Because according to the non-aggression principle (NAP), “one can offend, but one cannot be offended,” i.e., provocation is entirely permissible, as is self-defense, but the use of physical violence in response to provocation is a violation of the NAP. As a result, natural selection pressure is created to strengthen ML/VIM. If you, as a specific opponent of gene therapy, are prone to violence in deed rather than just in words, you will inevitably be removed from the population.

2) The moderately statist scenario. This is very likely in developed countries where the level of violence is already low, and humanism and human rights are more or less recognized as values. The propensity for violence is recognized as a socially dangerous pathology, like, for example, incurable infectious diseases. Even a hundred years ago, even in the USA, it was the norm to send carriers of dangerous infections such as leprosy and typhus into lifelong quarantine. Similarly, it will be with violent people — a reservation will be created on an island or in some remote wilderness, where all those prone to violence will be exiled as socially dangerous elements. Inside, they will live quite freely, roughly as they do now in some places of deprivation of liberty in Norway for not very dangerous criminals. But they will never be able to leave this reservation (at least until the creation of gene therapy or another method of strengthening ML/VIM).

3) The authoritarian scenario. Unlikely in developed countries, but who knows where the stars will turn… It is as simple as can be — mass genetic testing and forced euthanasia or sterilization followed by the exile of all carriers of weak ML/VIM variants (i.e., those prone to violence). Personally, as a libertarian/voluntarist, I naturally do not approve of this scenario, but I would like to warn opponents of gene therapy that society can turn toward totalitarianism at any moment and you personally will be subject to destruction. There have been enough examples in history!

So remember this well — when the existence of a violence-inhibiting mechanism in the species Homo sapiens and the variability of its strength in different people becomes a well-known fact, violence will be eradicated regardless of the successes in developing gene therapy. Only the methods by which this happens will now depend personally on you!


Until quite recently, the forced sterilization of the “unfit” was a reality even in the seemingly “free” USA

The Mechanics of Freedom in Audio

The translation of Friedman’s “Mechanics of Freedom” into audiobook format continues. The first and second parts have already been fully narrated; only a tiny bit remains — four more parts. The current version of the audiobook is available as a playlist, and the corresponding tracks are also attached to the text of each chapter.

In addition, with a slight delay, Oleg is also uploading the recorded material to his YouTube channel. There is more than just Friedman there, so he hopes the channel might interest you.