Chapter 64, Incorrect Use of Externality Arguments, is dedicated to the question of how the brain of even the most unbiased researcher tends to bend facts to fit a ready-made concept when it comes to searching for arguments for certain targeted actions. This is not to mention the difficulty of classifying various possible consequences as positive or negative, as well as the possibility of a consciously biased selection of facts. All of this completely undermines the utilitarian considerations used to justify a particular policy; therefore, in such matters, it is more appropriate to be guided by general theoretical, legal, and ethical criteria, leaving speculations that the world will end if one does not immediately march in the right direction to the demagogues.
In Petrozavodsk, the rules for placing signs were recently canceled, and most likely, entrepreneurs will start hanging very bright banners again to advertise their establishments; however, ordinary people will clearly not be very fond of such an arrangement. What will happen to the design code of signs (and to the facades of buildings, since differently glazed balconies and air conditioning units spoil the appearance of the object) under ancap?
анонимный вопрос
This is a typical example of a question about externalities. Who will pay the owner of a historical building for a careful reconstruction instead of a cheap and high-quality modern renovation? Who will forbid defacing the facade with convenient and useful air conditioning units? Who will encourage the creation of banners and signs that please the fastidious taste of an aesthete, rather than those that simply increase sales? Who, if not the state?
You probably already know that any ancap should answer this question. “The market, of course,” an ancap will answer. But how will the market do all this? It doesn’t have hands. The market has invisible hands, don’t worry. Now I will explain where they grow from.
First, the invisible hands take the economy by the scruff of the neck and pull it out of the obvious hole. If no state clings to the economy in the process, it will be easier for the market to pull it out. Every entrepreneur will decide for themselves, based on local cultural norms and their own ideas of what is acceptable, what size and what acidity of colors is appropriate for a sign here in order to maximize profit. And the better their property rights to what is under the sign are protected, the more this profit will be viewed in a long-term perspective.
A poor person will buy a cheaper apartment, as spacious as possible and not too far from work. A well-off person will buy a spacious and cozy one. A rich person will build a beautiful house in which every detail will please their own eye. Somewhere between being well-off and rich, it will already be strange to remember such an archaic problem as an air conditioning unit sticking out in a prominent place.
Some historical buildings will be demolished for the sake of objects that bring more income. When this income turns into wealth and prosperity, the remaining historical buildings will become expensive and prestigious—those who want to live in historical buildings themselves or house tourists there will invest in their careful reconstruction. And whoever finds the old historical buildings insufficient will find a great architect, and they will build a new building that will become no less historical—despite the fact that niches for air conditioning units will be provided in it. And the signs on it will look solid and noble. Or perhaps lush and neon, if that turns out to be the spirit of the neighborhood. Because why hang a sign that violates the spirit of the place, especially if you are not limited in means? It will not be as effective.
And in some places, instead of such subtle matters as spirit, there will be strict rules prescribed by the owner of the territory—or a homeowners’ association. They are within their rights, but most likely they too will use their rules to ensure that their land is worth more, the district is considered more prestigious, and the tenant is not too frightened by unnecessary strictness. They will have a far more direct motivation for this than officials from some urban planning department.
Why did the pig pick up a hammer and what was it trying to get from our host? What should be done with those who violate the principle of non-aggression? Is revenge permissible if it is non-violent? What question should one ask when seeking compensation for damages?
I present to you a fresh video on individual tactics for defusing aggressive violence. The script was written with a hammer to the temple, but everything turned out fine. Enjoy the viewing.
I understand little about football, and among international sports organizations, I am more or less familiar only with the Practical Shooting Confederation, but that is not particularly fundamental. In any case, all such organizations are created to promote certain types of sports or other activities (some GreenPeace or Red Cross are organizations of the same sort, although they have nothing to do with sports).
The task of such organizations is to simplify interaction between local teams, clubs, and similar units, to develop uniform rules, organize competitions, and so on. They are funded by participant fees, donations, the sale of advertising, merchandise, and the like. In short, states are not required for their activities at all.
How does state participation in the activities of such organizations manifest? Well, for sports, it is the existence of national teams, national championships, and so on. If there are no states, then instead there will be some competitions within a conditional red league, green league, purple league, and so on — and then a final battle for some, hm, rainbow cup.
Various Olympic Games now officially host events not in countries, but in specific cities; thus, it will be municipalities, or even private owners of stadiums and hotels, who will compete for this right, rather than states.
For some “Doctors Without Borders,” borders, as is easy to understand from the name, only get in the way. The same can be said about other international associations of activists — their opportunities will increase significantly upon the abolition of the concept of “state sovereignty.”
Consortia like W3C and their likes already operate as if there are no states, or, in the worst case, are forced to somehow adapt to their presence, and they will not weep over their loss.
In short, I cannot imagine a situation in which any current non-governmental international association would be unable to continue its activities practically without changes under ancap.
As is easy to see, there are no state borders on the FIFA emblem
I read Vladimir Zolotorev’s book Can something that wasn’t broken be fixed? In it, Vladimir develops his cycle of previously published articles on the nature of the state, shows that it works perfectly in its normal mode, performing exactly what it was created for, and reflects on realistic options for its reduction or abolition.
In effect, he has created something like Rothbard’s For a New Liberty, but using a different conceptual apparatus: Rothbard analyzed the state primarily from legal positions, while Zolotorev does so from the perspective of praxeology, spontaneous orders, and social evolution.
A fairly large section of the book is devoted to explaining how society works (one might not even need to add the adjective “stateless” to it, because that is its natural state; rather, for the current state of affairs, it would be more appropriate to speak of “society with a state”).
The last part of the book presents considerations on the abolition of the state. The key to this is to stop viewing the state as an organization. From this, it becomes clear why political methods of fighting the state do not yield results under normal conditions; rather, they strengthen it, making it more efficient. Ridance of the state in its modern form lies more in the sphere of losing social consent for legalized robbery. At this moment, power is lost, and the state disappears de facto.
Next, a small window of opportunity opens for political methods that allow for the reformatting of the political process itself. This can be done in two directions.
First, the subject of political bargaining can be shifted from budget expenditures to budget collections, that is, turning taxes into fees. Alexander Rozov writes extensively about this in a colorful fictional form in his Meganesian cycle.
Second, the state can be turned into a joint-stock company, not in a figurative, but in a literal sense. Subsequently, the management of this newly formed JSC will optimize the company’s structure within a market paradigm and will join the ranks of all other existing corporations in the world.
All the material and specific recipes are given using the example of Ukraine, so the book should not be perceived as a completely literal manual for action in Russian realities, but it is still more relevant material than recipes based on American material.
Zolotorev’s work was released as part of a collection of works by three different authors. I am posting it in full, but if someone extracts only Zolotorev’s part from the general PDF and translates it, for example, into epub, I would be very grateful, as it would be more convenient to read.
Our team has released a new video. We continue to develop the theme of NAP, and while in the previous episode we limited ourselves to formulating the principle as it applies to today’s realities, now we are considering the question of why, exactly, violence is a poor tool. It would seem that so many people have used it for so many years, so why give it up?
Separately, I really enjoyed the atmospheric gaming inserts in the video — the team has returned to its signature touch, and that makes me very happy.
The next episode will feature a set of recommendations for the unobtrusive implementation of NAP (I already have this script ready), and further, there are planned recommendations regarding obtrusive implementation, a topic I am still exploring.
I read in a left-anarchist channel reflections that our very own Elon Musk has completely dropped his mask and is now collaborating not just with the state, but with the military establishment itself; shame on him, and shame on everyone who speaks of him approvingly.
This reminded me of the words of another liberal idol, Ludwig von Mises, who said that the entrepreneur’s task is to vigilantly seek ever-new ways of satisfying customer demand, and if guns find more demand than butter, there is no sense in blaming the entrepreneur for producing guns.
But with Musk, it is much simpler; he is not choosing between guns and butter, but is steadily moving toward the future he considers desirable. In the brave new world that Musk is building, there is no problem with delivering eighty tons of cargo to the other side of the planet by rocket in an hour. And it makes no difference what cargo one starts with. A customer was found for the development of cargo suborbital transport—so we will build it. And once the technology is mastered using military budgets, it can be brought to the private market to send cargo cheaply. And then, with a bit more polishing, send people.
In reality, for most military tasks, sending dozens of tons twenty thousand kilometers in an hour is overkill. However, for emergency response, this option will be very useful. Thus, I foresee a predominantly peaceful use of this technology being developed with military funds.
If taxes have already been collected and the question is how to spend them, then let them at least be spent by a private actor on dual-use technologies with prospects for wide civilian application.
My favorite Telegram channel, Libertarian State, published a brief set of principles they promote in two parts. Part 1. Part 2. I have read them. Short, clear, and concise; I find much of what is presented to be useful, but there is only one serious problem: the channel’s target audience is incapable of implementing these principles.
In this regard, I believe it is useful to outline my own approach to building a libertarian future, which is something every one of my readers is actually capable of implementing. This is, of course, agorism. Even before I became acquainted with Konkin’s ideas on counter-economics, I called this approach counter-cultural, contrasting it with the political one. What is wrong with the political approach?
There is no point in spending effort trying to change the political course of the state. First, you would have to start with the support of a negligible minority. Second, politics is a path of inevitable compromises, and in the best case, your ideas about reducing the state will be implemented only partially. Third, just as it shrinks, it will grow back: there is not a single example where liberal reforms were not followed by a reversal, and in general, the trend is toward further strengthening the role of the state. And finally, for successful political activity, you need to build complex associations, but any organization united by a simple interest is incredibly easy to destroy. You will endlessly bog down in internal conflicts over whose version of Rothbard is truer, and who violated which point of the charter at what moment.
Instead, it is proposed: first, remove the state from your head; second, remove it from your life; third, remove it from the lives of your loved ones; and fourth, expand the circle of these loved ones.
The most important is the first. At this stage, you firmly understand that there are no tasks for which a decent person would need the state. You have to turn to it out of necessity, for some silly permit, but you certainly should not expect to succeed by cooperating with it.
After serious progress in the first stage, you will inevitably begin to progress in the second. You will always wonder: can it be done under the table? Can it be done without a permit? Can it be done without reporting? Your competencies will develop in this specific area, rather than, for example, in the area of collecting certificates to receive social benefits.
If you are successful in bypassing state hurdles, you will inevitably help your loved ones do the same. Thus, you will become a useful person for a small circle of people. And, naturally, this circle will expand over time, and you will acquire interesting connections and influence.
At some stage, you might, for example, be imprisoned. An activist acquaintance might also be imprisoned. So might an honest state loyalist. Or a security official who lost an internal power struggle. The state devours everyone; you will not be its priority target. But it will have fewer chances of reaching you. You know the detours. You will flee abroad, change your identity, lie low, or in the worst case, dismantle the case.
Admit it, this prospect is more interesting than spending several years becoming, for example, a municipal deputy, sitting in meetings as part of a minority, and managing to achieve nothing during your term of office.
Let us consider the organization of law and order according to David Friedman — in my opinion, his approach is the most developed and yet remains entirely within the framework of ancap, that is, a society with a free market where everything is traded, including law. Various law enforcement agencies and various courts operate in the market, guided by various legal systems. The task of a law enforcement agency is to protect the private property of its clients and assist in resolving conflicts between clients and other entities. The task of a court is to develop decisions that resolve conflicts between the court’s clients. Finally, a legal system is the product of the work of lawyers, representing a certain set of principles and templates for conflict resolution.
When the owner of a certain territory kills a stranger on it, this may cause a conflict with a wide variety of people or organizations. First, these could be companions of the deceased who are convinced that the execution was unjust. Second, his relatives or friends who were not present during the clash but are interested in finding out what happened. Third, the law enforcement agency of which the deceased was a client. Finally, any concerned individual who dislikes it when people are killed for no reason. In short, the killer has no reason to believe that no one will care about this incident.
In medieval Iceland, in the event of such excesses, the killer had to immediately tell the nearest neighbor what happened, taking him as a witness. It can be assumed that such a norm would also take hold under ancap, since the killer is directly interested in this: by telling everything, he can claim that it was an accidental conflict, or even one provoked by the victim, but if the story is hidden, it is unequivocally an intentional murder, for which much more serious sanctions are due.
Thus, after the murder has been announced, all that remains is to conduct an investigation. Much time has passed since the age of the sagas, technology has advanced, and it is possible to establish with slightly greater certainty how truthful the killer’s story is, even if there are no direct witnesses to the incident. Of course, the killer has no reason to obstruct the investigation, because that would predispose the court against him. But he can, of course, try to forge evidence to create a false impression.
Does the fact that the murder took place on the killer’s territory give any preferences in court? Only if it is established that the deceased violated the rules announced by the owner of the territory and refused to leave the other’s property. Therefore, naturally, the killer is interested in claiming exactly that. Whether he succeeds in creating the necessary appearance is a purely technical question.
An interesting question. People more often ask how things in the sphere of so-called public goods will work under ancap. Commercial real estate, however, is a private good. Under a state, the right of private property is to some extent conditional, because it depends on whether the state changes its mind about recognizing this right, or decides to nationalize a particular object. Under ancap, the right of private property is also conditional, and depends on how strong of a negative externality the property owner creates for those around them.
So, if I am to answer the question directly: commercial real estate under ancap will operate in such a way as to create minimum negative externalities and maximum income. Those entrepreneurs who solve this optimization problem better than others will prosper.
How will private detectives work under ancap? After all, it seems one cannot violate someone else’s property.
Anal Magician
As I already mentioned in the answer to the previous question, private property is a conditional concept. Well, this is my favorite mantra that rights are claims that are tolerated—you’ve probably already learned it by heart. Therefore, a private detective first conducts an investigation as far as possible without violating anyone’s property rights and without disturbing anyone—for example, using open data, recordings from public cameras, analysis of evidence provided by the client, and so on. If during the investigation he becomes interested in something located on someone’s property, he seeks ways to obtain the owner’s consent. If consent is not granted, he usually manages to find workarounds.
And in a situation where absolutely all leads point to a unique piece of evidence controlled by some owner who is unwilling to grant access, this becomes a strong suspicion that this owner is, in the worst case, the sought-after criminal, or their accomplice, or in the best case, a sympathizer. And here the owner may well be faced with a choice of what will bring them the lower cost: strong suspicions of complicity in a crime or granting the detective the right to investigate on their territory.
Let’s also add such a tool as a reward for assistance in the investigation—if the notorious owner understands that they will receive a reward for their inconvenience, then why not put up with it.
Suppose ancap has arrived, and on the street one person killed another. In the current system, the police would handle this case. But who will handle this case under ancap? Private detective agencies? But they must be paid, and what if the person had no relatives or friends?
anonymous question
Well, this is already an example of a traditional question about ancap: how public goods will be ensured. Fortunately, you specified the location of the murder: the street. The purpose of a street is to ensure the mass movement of people within a settlement. Exactly how the street owner monetizes the solution to this task is a separate question. In this case, we are interested in the fact that unpunished murders on the street hinder the task of mass unobstructed movement along it. If the street owner does not solve this problem, people will either have to invent ways to protect themselves on this street or stay away from this sinister place. In the second case, traffic drops, and this directly hits the owner’s income. In the first case, the costs for residents increase, they become less solvent, and the street owner’s income drops indirectly. So, he has economic incentives to solve this problem, even if he is not bound by an obligation to provide security on his street directly.
Of course, if the street owner manages to hide the incident, it will save costs. But you know these people: they are always sniffing something out, they are always suspicious… Once this episode surfaces, all sorts of speculations will begin that dozens of corpses are being hauled away every night and it’s time to flee this cesspool. To hell with that, transparency is more profitable.
A city known for the fact that security on the streets was provided by a volunteer. Well, that’s also a way, of course, but usually the heroism of one person only masks the failures of others.
