The Inadequacy of the Open Access Order

Voluntarist

One of the options for achieving a social order in which human rights are respected, property is protected, and there is the maximum possible absence of violence is proposed by the concept of open access order, described in the work of Douglass North, John Wallis, and Barry Weingast titled “Violence and Social Orders.” Those seeking a solution to various social problems, including the problem of violence, while remaining within the framework of the institution of statehood, are increasingly turning to this concept. But is it truly workable, and can it solve these problems?

To begin, let us briefly familiarize ourselves with what is meant by open access order. We will do this in comparison with another concept – limited access order. In limited access, state power is held by a coalition of elites who mutually recognize and share rent-seeking income (income from monopolized economic spheres and natural resources, as well as the issuance of licenses to conduct activities). In contrast, open access means the impersonality of political management mechanisms, the influence over which is available to all citizens of the state.

Some conclusions can already be drawn from this definition. Political management mechanisms cannot, in principle, be made impersonal, since in any case they require managers and executors. Even if one imagines some kind of absolute direct democracy (the reality of which does not exist on a large scale), an infrastructure for executing decisions is still necessary, which, again, contains these groups of people. In this case, the managers are indeed the elites of the established system. Why? To explain this, we must point to another fact – rent from monopolies does not disappear upon the achievement of open access order. Economic spheres, natural resources, and types of activities that no one has the right to manage without appropriate state permission still generate income directed into the centralized budget of political management bodies, meaning directly into the hands of those same managers. I believe that corruption, lobbying of interests, and the embezzlement of budget funds, which currently exist in any state, should indisputably explain that these managers are merely another elite redistributing these funds for their own benefit, thus deriving income from them.

Another thing that clearly does not align with the reduction of violence in society is the fact that a mandatory prerequisite for achieving open access order is the consolidation of all security structures in the hands of a single organization. In effect, we have the complete elimination of the balance of violence potential in favor of a monopoly on violence, which, by the way, is an inherent property of the current state. And what reduction in the level of violence can be discussed if the monopolist of violence, due to the defenselessness of other subjects, has greater opportunities to commit acts of violence?

This can be particularly confirmed by examples of open access orders in the form of states that have reached this condition. The work “Violence and Social Orders” lists 20 such states. This list includes the USA, Great Britain and its former dominions, Scandinavia, Benelux, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, as well as some other states with certain reservations. And really, has violence been defeated in these countries? Does the monopolist of violence there never abuse its position?

And finally, I will give you a general fact – any state that has a monopoly on power, regardless of its structure, is an organ that commits violence. Even if one imagines the same absolute direct democracy, it is inevitably linked to the forceful coercion of the minority to the will of the majority. Furthermore, the very fact of the existence of a state, in which you are required to be a member by compulsory order, points us to the impossibility of eradicating violence with its help.

Tyan, could I also get a review of Grad, Snail, and Picnic?

I used the search and found a review of Rainbow. I’ve never seen it from such an angle! It turned out to be an unexpectedly pleasant, intellectually stimulating stereoscopic effect

Semarg (Question accompanied by a donation of 0.1 dash)

At this rate, sooner or later I will become acquainted with practically the entire legacy of the Strugatsky brothers. To start with, I read “Roadside Picnic,” and now I will share my thoughts on it, and in time I will get to the other two commissioned novellas.

What invariably pleases me about the Strugatskys is that their world is quite psychologically authentic, and since economics largely continues psychology, it turns out to be economically consistent as well. For example, it is quite accurately noted that no matter how much you lower the iron curtain, you cannot completely isolate any Zone; it will inevitably become part of world trade, bringing prosperity to both itself and the outside world, while the paranoiacs from the secret services will have to accept it.

But, of course, the Zone is not only a metaphor for a frightening and incomprehensible foreign land, but simultaneously a metaphor, let’s say, for the sphere of scientific knowledge. In “Hard to Be a God,” the Strugatskys showed science as a box. A scientist puts his hand in and pulls out some random thing. He thinks he will use it this way, but it turns out that others start using it that way. It is similar in “Picnic.” A stalker drags some mysterious loot out of the zone, which is then adapted for use in unpredictable ways. The fact that the result will be unpredictable is no reason not to haul it, because the risk pays off.

And since we’ve started talking about science, I cannot fail to note that the only representative of the USSR in the book is engaged, conventionally speaking, in studying the influence of the philological characteristics of the word “concrete” on the drilling properties of a gaze. All the conversion of the Zone’s wonders into technological wonders is left to greedy capitalists. The stalkers act as sorts of startups that skim the cream off new markets, but gradually give way to fat corporations that rely not on courage and art, but on capital investments and methodicalness. As usual, the vast majority of startups go bust.

In conclusion, I will note that in the world of “Roadside Picnic,” humanity was terribly lucky. The most important thing about the aliens’ visit to Earth was the very fact of the visit. After this, humanity simply had no choice but to stop closing its eyes and pretending that it was alone in the universe. Our humanity also most likely encountered an alien probe in 2017, but preferred to pretend that nothing special happened, because acknowledging the very fact of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization is psychologically unbearable. I am talking about the visit to the Solar System by an object named ‘Oumuamua and its performance of non-gravitational maneuvers in the system. So we live as if nothing happened, as if there had been no Visit.

Transaction insurance, supplement

I want to supplement Voluntarist’s yesterday’s post on transaction insurance.

In the Telegram comments, several points were quite rightly noted.

First, classical individual insurance is always based on statistics and probabilities, so it will primarily be applied where transactions are standardized and risks are sufficiently random. It is quite difficult to imagine, for example, insuring a bank against a borrower’s intentional non-payment of a loan while prohibiting the insurance company from forcibly recovering that very loan. If such an insurance service were provided, there would be a fairly strong temptation for bank employees to organize a scheme of issuing non-repayable loans to shell companies for kickbacks, with the bank subsequently receiving insurance when the loan is not returned.

Second, the use of escrow accounts is usually imposed on transaction participants by the platform owner who sets the trading rules. If transactions occur without an intermediary, the use of an escrow scheme is unlikely, especially if the freezing of funds is expected to be long, as in the case of shared construction agreements.

Third, I was reminded of my year-old post about, suddenly, juvenile justice, where I noted certain difficulties with liability insurance.

In this regard, I want to mention another convenient way to reduce the risks of contract non-performance that is not related to violent coercion. These are the good old insurance groups, meaning archaic collective responsibility. In the old days, a person’s entire kinship, tribe, clan, or community—in short, a group of relatives and possibly neighbors—was responsible for them. Therefore, one didn’t have to worry much about personal reputation; instead, a person was judged by who they belonged to.

Of course, in a stateless society, there is no need to necessarily restore communal living, although the factor of belonging to an insurance group would be a compelling reason to cluster in such a way. Then again, there is certainly no need now to organize specifically by kinship, as friends and like-minded people play the role of the kin today. But I want to discuss not interest-based circles, but how transaction risks can be further reduced.

Entrepreneurs wishing to earn the trust of potential counterparties can form associations. Admission to such an association can be based on various criteria. Some may be accepted for an already established good name. Others—for promises to conduct business with impeccable honesty and a large deposit. Others—under the guarantee of respected members of the association. For external counterparties, the association acts as a group guarantor for the transactions of its members.

Every member of the association is, on one hand, interested in the growth of its membership, because this means that in the event of collective responsibility, the losses of each member are reduced. On the other hand, everyone is interested in ensuring that only honest and reliable entrepreneurs enter the association—those who insure others rather than parasitize the collective. The association will cover the costs of a breached contract not only for classic insurance events, but also in cases of force majeure, and even if a member of the association turns out to be a fraudster. But, of course, in the latter case, it would mean a “wolf’s ticket” (blacklisting) for such an entrepreneur.

Finally, I will note that the proven, well-known dishonesty of an entrepreneur by no means means that he will die in a ditch because no one will sell him anything and no one will hire him for anything. It simply means he will not be taken at his word, and all transactions for him will operate on a “money upfront” principle.

Any attempts to depict a stateless society as something totally cannibalistic imply either an incredible scarcity of resources for which people must tear each other’s throats out, or a post-totalitarian syndrome of complete mutual distrust. Naturally, the gradual dying out of non-violent practices in general and the state in particular cannot be accompanied by such catastrophic symptoms.

*Interview for admission to the association of agricultural producers*

Transaction Insurance

Voluntarist

The topic of non-violent tools for implementing measures against those who violate agreements has been raised by us several times before. Usually, in such cases, the conversation revolves around reputational institutions and ostracism, but besides this, the case of financial instruments providing the possibility of predetermining mechanisms to cover damages caused by a breach of agreement is particularly interesting. Transaction insurance can be called a fairly universal tool of this kind.

To demonstrate what is meant by transaction insurance, let us look at a case of an existing implementation of this practice. It is actively used in lending, especially when it comes to large loans or mortgages. The essence is that the person borrowing the funds also signs an insurance contract, under which they undertake to additionally pay an insurance premium, usually in the amount of a certain percentage of the remaining debt. This percentage is small; its value rarely exceeds 1%, and in the case of a mortgage, one can find an insurance premium rate as low as 0.25% of the remaining debt.

Why is this necessary? If a person finds themselves unable to repay the loan, or if they took it solely for the purpose of stealing the credit funds with no intention of returning them, then these funds are covered by insurance. Given that, in reality, not such a large percentage of people actually violate the terms of the transaction, the funds collected through insurance premiums are quite sufficient to cover the damage caused by a small percentage of deceivers.

As for me, transaction insurance has very great potential. This concept could be applied to a wide spectrum of transactions in principle. During any transaction, the parties could register the contract with an insurance company and contribute a certain small percentage of the transaction amount to an insurance fund. If one of the parties violates the terms of the transaction, the insurance company where the insurance was registered compensates the damaged party.

This method can also be combined with other types of non-violent sanctions, such as the aforementioned ostracism. A violator of a transaction will, of course, end up on blacklists; the insurance company, which had to spend funds from its fund to compensate for the damage, is especially interested in this. The violator’s life will be very difficult; many will refuse to conduct transactions with them or offer less favorable terms that account for the risk that this person might cheat. But, of course, they can get out of this situation if they eventually agree to cooperate and make concessions to those who suffered from their violation. Of course, they may not have the opportunity to compensate for the damage caused at the moment, however, in such a situation, the parties usually agree on more accessible terms for fulfilling obligations. In the credit sphere, a good example is the debt restructuring procedure, when payments are shifted to the future, stretched over time—which reduces the payment amount—or when a part of the interest rate or the debt itself is written off. In the end, all parties prefer some solution to the problem over the absence of one.

Reputational institutions can also be combined with transaction insurance in a different way. If someone is known for their honesty, with many transactions behind them that they did not violate, they may be offered lower insurance premiums, or even their complete absence. If, however, someone is a known violator or an unreliable agent, transactions with them can be concluded only on the condition of paying higher insurance premiums. Thus, it becomes profitable for people not to violate agreements, since the replenishment of the insurance fund will be shifted specifically onto the violators.

New Libertarian Band video – about army dodging

Libertarian Band has released the third video from the “Agorist Cookbook” series, this time dedicated to how to avoid the army. The video is long, over 15 minutes, but includes timecodes. You can skip directly to the “Practical Tips” section at 5:23, because before that there is a long historical introduction about what conscription was like during the times of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea, and this introduction has no connection to the subsequent detailed and useful practical instructions.

To the tips suggested in the video, I will add my own. Instead of trying to abuse the system through courts and begging for the right to alternative civilian service, you can simply leave the country in advance. Montenegro, where I am moving, is not the only option; there are many other places where a Russian person lives more freely and prosperously than under the jurisdiction of Moscow.

This is precisely the most agorist way to avoid the army draft. This is the method described by Ayn Rand in her most famous work. Our ancestors, by dismantling the Soviet Union, achieved the most important freedom for us: the freedom to leave. If they had had this freedom, how many Russians would not have perished in the 20th century at the hands of the Soviet state! So let us not undervalue this crucial achievement. We are now left with no other way to vote for a better future for ourselves than by voting with our feet.

Mechanics of Freedom: Update

First, I want to say thank you to Andrey Shevtsov, who quickly put together a PDF based on the text published on the website. Now those who wish can play at samizdat and print themselves a hard copy.

Secondly, besides attaching audio to each of the chapters individually, I have also gathered them into playlists for the convenience of listening in sequence, without the need to flip through pages.

Here is the English version.

[cue id=”7475″]

And here is the Russian one; it will be updated as subsequent chapters are recorded.

[cue id=”7371″]

And finally—you asked very much to make the navigation between chapters easier. I have set it up for the translation, so feel free to test it. I haven’t done it for the original yet, as it is a very tedious task since it has to be written manually.

Mechanics of Freedom — it’s all over!

I am happy to announce that I have finished translating David Friedman’s book The Machinery of Freedom and am finally posting it as a single file for e-readers. Download it, share the book with those you deem worthy, and be sure to visit the donations page to choose the size of the “like” you want to give.

Additionally, the creation of an audiobook based on the translation is gradually continuing; as of today, the entire first part of the book has been fully voiced, and the second has begun. The text is read by Oleg, and if you would like to thank him for this in some way, message him privately on Telegram and let him provide his details. Or use the payment bot for dash and send him some crypto directly via his Telegram name.

Harm reduction instead of forceful coercion

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There are various ways to explain why forceful coercion is an ineffective, useless, or even harmful approach to achieving certain goals. We will examine one of them now. I was inspired to write this material by an article about an alternative, more effective method of fighting the coronavirus pandemic than the total ban on certain types of human interaction. You can read the full version of it via this link. I will provide a brief overview of it here.

In the fight against the pandemic, it is important to avoid social contacts. However, humans are beings who, in most cases, cannot fully do without them. Research shows that humans are strongly psychologically dependent on social contacts. And attempting to ban them will only lead to the fact that they will still occur, they will simply go underground.

The concept of “harm reduction” comes to our aid. Based on this concept, a much better result is achieved not through prohibition and blame, but through awareness and an attempt to encourage a person to make decisions that, while not completely eradicating risky behavior, will allow the associated harm to be reduced. This concept emerged during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s; it was implemented as a needle exchange program for drug addicts so that they would not risk contracting various infectious diseases by using one syringe for several people. Naturally, drug addicts were far more willing to engage in harm reduction than to submit to bans. Furthermore, the opportunity to choose harm reduction as opposed to harsh measures often encourages people to abandon risky behavior. This is confirmed even by statistical data in the case of drug addiction—the health of participants in needle exchange programs only improved; they were less likely to start taking drugs and more likely to seek treatment for addiction.

Another important concept called the “abstinence violation effect” tells us that harsh measures fundamentally do not work when getting rid of risky behavior, because a person stops perceiving failures adequately. For example, when a person tries to quit smoking by abruptly giving up cigarettes, a relapse will most likely lead them to think, “since I’ve already ruined everything, there’s no point in trying anymore,” and they will cease any further attempts to do so. A more effective strategy is a gradual withdrawal without the use of harsh measures and treating relapses as a normal phenomenon in the process of getting rid of a bad habit.

In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, governments decided to fight it specifically by introducing harsh measures and blaming people who do not comply with them. However, as we can already see, this does not solve the problem in any way. People see no point in submitting to such measures and giving up social contacts; on the contrary, they only hide their behavior and resist the measures being introduced. A more reasonable strategy in this case would have been harm reduction—that is, informing people about the risks of certain types of social contacts and promoting a competent approach to assessing these risks in various situations, rather than attempting to establish total bans. Then they would have been more inclined to follow measures that are useful in the fight against the pandemic.

In conclusion, by familiarizing ourselves with psychological concepts such as “harm reduction” and the “abstinence violation effect,” and by observing them in practice in cases such as drug addiction and the pandemic, we can conclude that forceful coercion—that is, harsh measures to implement certain types of behavior—cannot be an effective approach to achieving any goals; people will simply evade or resist. It would be far more effective not to pressure people, not to blame them for anything, and to give them the opportunity to freely choose less risky behavior as opposed to submitting to harsh measures.

What is the difference between libertarianism (classlib) and modern “European Union” liberalism, and how do Ancap-chan and Bitarch view the latter, being ancaps and voluntarists?

Do you believe that social justice, democracy, general welfare, developed feminism, LGBT rights, juvenile justice, tolerance, reliable protection of human rights, liberty, equality, and fraternity are good or bad, and why?

Teanol (the question is accompanied by a donation of 0.00008010 BTC)

In classical liberalism, the state is considered an evil necessary for the protection of private property rights. In libertarianism, it is not considered necessary for this function; however, as long as it limits itself to this, its existence may be considered justified. In a conditional EU-style liberalism, the state is viewed as a tool for reconciling the interests of various strata of society, one that is more convenient than free market tools.

What is the convenience of the modern liberal state compared to the classical liberal one? Primarily, it is that being personally responsible for one’s own life is a rather frightening level of responsibility for many people. In the market, you must independently decide which property objects to insure, where, and under what conditions; how much and when to save for unforeseen circumstances or for an entirely predictable old age; which neighbors’ claims to satisfy and which to actively oppose, and if you oppose them, whether to do so independently or in a coalition. This is somewhat complicated; it’s better to spend one’s finite intellectual resources on skills that bring in money, and delegate all the aforementioned tasks, as far as possible, to those who are more savvy in these matters.

In a complex world where narrow specialists interact, a vast number of standardized solutions will inevitably be used, and a significantly smaller number of custom ones. The state is a standardized solution for any issues where it is not entirely clear who to offload them onto. And since such issues are constantly proliferating, the functionality of the state—even one consisting of entirely well-meaning liberal bureaucrats completely devoid of corrupt interests—will inevitably expand.

But as the state grows, its inefficiency inevitably grows as well. A Swiss Army knife with a couple hundred blades looks great in a store window, and you really want to buy this shiny toy, but in everyday life, the vast majority find it more convenient to have one very simple knife for most standard tasks, plus a couple of highly specialized ones that are used rarely, but when others are extremely inconvenient. A durable jumpsuit with a bunch of pockets looks exquisitely designed, but in a relaxed setting, a person throws on shorts and a t-shirt. It seems like you’d want to be able to call 911 and solve absolutely any problem, but in practice, this means you’ll get tired of fighting an automated answering machine, selecting menu items, and in the end, you’ll still be directed to the wrong specialist.

One would think that the more aggressive the environment, the tougher and more reliable the institutions should be. Therefore, on a small yacht in the middle of the sea, a single chain of command and clear functional duties for each crew member are quite appropriate, while on a beach, it’s enough that those wishing to play volleyball don’t trip over those sunbathing; otherwise, let complete anarchy reign and no one will care about anyone else. But the state cannot do that. It grew out of military needs, and it’s like a guy who returned from the front, suffers from PTSD, and is extremely outraged that people on the beach aren’t buttoned up to the top, aren’t marching in formation, and aren’t saluting. If you let him establish his order, everyone will have a hard time, even without unofficial hazing. And it’s no better when the state looks like a safety engineer. Fence off the volleyball court! Divide swimming zones by gender and age! Everyone put on life jackets! Organize the delivery of ice cream and lemonade! But the ice cream must be warm so that no one catches a cold, and the lemonade sugar-free, regardless of the fact that the ice cream has sugar. And then the state will see some kind of COVID, and the whole beach will go down the drain because everyone must stay home and wash their hands.

For Bitarkha, it is important that no one attacks anyone. Because one person will attack with fists, and another will sneeze on the first, and the whole world will die from a virus. So that no one dares to attack anyone, it is desirable that everyone be armed, and those who are not stopped by the sight of a weapon in others’ hands should be stopped some other way. It could be a bullet at the moment of attack, but it’s more humane to make them change their mind, perhaps, say, medicinally. Fortunately, Bitarkha only needs people to observe the NAP; otherwise, he would be indistinguishable from an adept of the COVID-fighting state. In order to live in a safe society, he is willing to pay well.

It is important to me that both I and the people around me are wealthy and free. For this, people must not be robbed or restricted, and they must not be extorted for all sorts of useless nonsense. For this, robbing and restricting must be dangerous, unprofitable, and unprestigious. And I, as a civilized and benevolent person, would of course prefer that people be stopped from robbing and regulating for reasons of lack of prestige, or at the very least, lack of profitability. If I have to ensure a threat to them as well, that will stress me out.

I apologize for the lack of a direct list, such as “I feel this way about social justice, that way about democracy,” and so on.

Unexpected Find

I’ve almost finished formatting The Machinery of Freedom into a single, easy-to-read file, while simultaneously performing final editing (working at a speed almost like Shulman’s when she was proofreading Pinker). In essence, I’ve formatted everything that is already on the website, and now I’m tinkering with the second of three appendices, where he recommends various pleasant and useful literature. And there, I came across this description:

J. Neil Schulman, Alongside Night (New York: Avon, 1987), The Rainbow Cadenza (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983). Two clearly libertarian novels. The first describes a libertarian uprising in the near future, the second—a society where the ratio of men to women is ten to one, and where women are drafted into prostitution corps. A movie is currently being filmed based on the first one, in which I am to play a small role.

Oh, I thought, how interesting, the movie has surely been made by now, I should look for it. I found it. It’s a freaking masterpiece! A low-budget production with a very low rating, because of which Neil Schulman decided to give up on trying to sell it—and released it for free on YouTube. The entire film consists almost entirely of memes and easter eggs, so I watched it for a long time, constantly hitting pause. I highly recommend watching it; with the right mindset, you will certainly derive great pleasure from this amateur artistic endeavor.

Friedman plays the very modest role of the King of Sweden in the film.