Law, or courts under ancap. A new video from Libertarian Band

This is not an April Fool’s joke: Libertarian Band has finally released the long-awaited video about courts under ancap. I consider it one of our most important works, and I hope the video goes viral at least as well as the old video about ancap itself.

The film crew are absolute legends for managing to produce content at a good pace despite the current situation. Throw some money their way; they’ve earned it.

While creating the script, I leaned heavily on Hayek as interpreted by Zolotorev and, to a lesser extent, Chetvernin, as well as David Friedman and some other sources. I hope I managed to combine these diverse concepts harmoniously and create a truly original product.

I look forward to your likes and comments under the video.

Corona-chan

The coronavirus finally caught up with me. An attentive reader might have suspected this from the content of recent posts in the channel, but the test results only arrived today.

Main symptoms: an urge to hug statisticians, difficulty with self-isolation. I don’t feel a need for artificial ventilation of consciousness yet.

Although the channel continues to operate as usual, it is now assumed by default that posts are created by me in co-authorship with the coronavirus — unless stated otherwise.

Libertarian Ethics of Coronavirus

Evil Pechenka

Original publication on tjournal.ru

An attempt to understand why quarantines and lockdowns are needed, how this looks from a libertarian’s perspective, and what to do in all this mess.

What happens if the epidemic is not contained?

Currently, there is a COVID-19 epidemic, the WHO has declared a pandemic, many countries are closing for quarantine (“Lockdown” — a ban on movement), and the economy is losing money. Many are asking: is this actually necessary? All these inconveniences, restrictions on freedoms, damage to companies, extra power for governments—is it justified?

Let’s look at what would happen if absolutely nothing was done.

According to our estimates, in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would lead to 7 billion infections and 40 million deaths worldwide this year.

“Global impact of COVID-19 and mitigation and suppression strategies“, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London.

So, 40 million will die, 7 billion will fall ill (almost the entire population of the Earth) — this means something like 0.57% of the population will perish. That’s a significant figure, but it’s not 80%, not 50%, and not even 10%.

Who are these people?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics

We see that these will be, predominantly, elderly people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics

And also those with comorbidities: cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, cancer, hypertension.

So what does that mean? Sick elderly people will die, and the economy will not be particularly affected? Yes, that’s roughly how it works out.

Then why is quarantine needed?

It’s very simple:

If a suppression strategy is applied at an early stage (at 0.2 deaths per 100,000 population per week) and maintained, then 38.7 million lives can be saved.

“Global impact of COVID-19 and mitigation and suppression strategies“, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London.

That’s why. There is no vaccine, effective treatment is impossible, so there is such a measure — limiting contacts, which at the early stage of spread will help save nearly 97% of sick elderly people, according to the developed model.

So let’s understand — restricting movement is not about the economy, it’s about saving elderly people, most often those with comorbidities. The economy will not notice their absence.

What should libertarians do?

Libertarianism is not about ethics. Therefore, when we say “libertarian,” we are saying nothing about ethical norms or morality. On the other hand, we can expect a certain attitude toward the epidemic from libertarians.

Libertarianism suggests that each individual takes responsibility for themselves and their own life, rather than handing it over to a “rational government that knows best”; therefore, a libertarian is more independent and takes more measures on an individual basis.

A libertarian will likely make the necessary financial savings for a crisis, stock up on food, and purchase personal protective equipment in advance. This is very rational in order to ensure the safety of the object of responsibility — oneself.

Perhaps a libertarian will participate in various social initiatives: helping other community members, spreading truthful information, protection methods, and hygiene rules. Society is the area in front of the libertarian’s house, and like a good homeowner, they want to keep it clean and orderly.

It is quite possible that a libertarian will oppose attempts by the state to introduce stupid restrictions or excessively expand its powers, for example, banning marriage registrations or introducing total surveillance.

Will a libertarian follow a quarantine or lockdown? Most likely, they are already following it, as they don’t wait for “mom to say what is and isn’t allowed,” but make decisions themselves. And despite the fact that a libertarian opposes the form of communication “government ordered — people complied,” nevertheless, these bans changed nothing in their life.

Can a libertarian say “let the elderly die, the economy is more important”? Theoretically, they can; libertarianism is not about ethics. But such behavior is dangerous to the lives of others. In the event of causing harm, they will bear the burden of fines and other types of compensation, not to mention the reputational costs.

Quarantine Sabotage

Bitarch’s Column

Around the world, many governments have introduced the strictest form of quarantine, involving a ban on leaving the house except for “necessary cases.” The authorities in Italy were the first to adopt such a measure, then Spain and France joined in. Now, it seems, such a measure will also be introduced in the large cities of Russia. I have already written about why this measure not only destroys the economy but also fails to help stop the epidemic. But we are forced to live in an unpleasant reality imposed by the stationary bandit (the state), so I will try to give practical advice on how to bypass the imposed restrictions.

The basis of the strategy is plausible deniability. The point is to have a plausible legend for being out on the street that the police cannot verify. There is no need to declare that the quarantine violates the law or to behave provocatively in general. The police are simply following instructions and are not interested in verifying a plausible lie.

I will provide examples of strategies. The best strategy is to avoid attracting the attention of the police so that you are not stopped and asked why you came outside at all. To do this, take a plastic bag from a well-known retail chain and put some object in it for show (an apple, a bottle of water). Of course, the store’s name must coincide with its opening hours (if you go at night and Pyaterochka is already closed, it will look implausible).

If you are walking alone and get caught:

1) Say that you are going to a store or a pharmacy—if they are open at that time. If you are asked why you walked so far from home, say that the required product/medicine was not available in the store/pharmacy near your home. For maximum credibility, you can always carry a pack of paracetamol and say that you felt cold symptoms and are returning home from the pharmacy. Paracetamol is often taken to relieve symptoms of coronavirus infection, so a police officer will run away from you like a bullet as soon as they hear that you needed paracetamol.

2) If you go out often and during the day, it is better to agree with a friend so that in case of a check, they answer the call and confirm that you are going to their place to fix a computer, repair a faucet, lay a floor, or something like that. Working is not forbidden.

3) During the day, you can also say that you are going to some company’s office to apply for a job.

4) Delivery of goods is not forbidden. If you have paracetamol with you, you can explain to the police that you are bringing it to a sick friend who can no longer go to the pharmacy themselves.

5) If you go at night and everything in the city is closed, a hospital is surely open. Say that you feel unwell and are heading there.

If you want to take a walk with a friend/girlfriend or a child, say that they feel unwell and you are going to the hospital/clinic together. This can be done even at night.

As an alternative—obtain or independently manufacture a pass. This is not as difficult as it may seem at first glance.

1) Register your cat public page as a mass medium and obtain a journalist’s pass.

2) Print a similar certificate, posing as an employee of an enterprise that is not subject to quarantine. It is drawn up in free form.

If you have other strategies, please send them.

P.S. I do not deny the problem of the spread of coronavirus infection, and only suggest ways to avoid aggressive violence from the stationary bandit. Be sure to maintain a social distance of 2m, wear a mask and glasses, open handles and press elevator buttons through a napkin, which you should throw away immediately, and do not leave the house if you have COVID-19. Deliberately infecting peaceful people with the virus contradicts the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and is in no way permissible.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Chapter on Locke.

Many thanks to Mikhail Pozharsky, who promoted our translation project of Libertarianism by Eric Mack. As a result, we have seen a surge in website traffic and gained two new translators, though the rain of donations hasn’t quite fallen yet. Nevertheless, the work continues.

The second part of the book is dedicated to the philosophical premises of libertarianism. Today I am posting a short Introduction to the second part, as well as the first chapter: Locke on natural rights, civil society, resistance and toleration.

The author explains which doctrines of the time Locke opposed with his ideas, where he derives them from, what conclusions he draws, what couple of caveats he accompanies the concept of original appropriation of property with, for what purpose people form a government, at what point they should begin to rebel against it — and why such a rebellion would be just.

Be sure to send your donations to the address 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo — and next time we will be able to tell you what Hume wrote about the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation.

P.S. It turned out that in addition to the text we pirated, there is another bonus section attached to the book, open to all. But for consistency, we have also posted it on our website, and we will translate it in time. Therefore, the total number of chapters in our progress bar has changed.

Bitcoin. A new video from Libertarian band

The second episode of the third season of our favorite series by Libertarian band has been released. The third season, dedicated to the mechanisms of a stateless society, began with the criteria for the stability of anarchy. We examined several of them, chose one, and settled firmly on it. Bitcoin is an excellent illustration of how this criterion works.

We briefly went through the history of money and described why Bitcoin emerged, why it was created in this specific way, and why it is an excellent tool for a stateless society, without which, of course, things would have been significantly more difficult for us in the wonderful Ancapistan of the future.

Translation of Mechanics of Freedom, Chapter 44

I continue to provide you with content for leisurely quarantine reading, this time returning to grandfather Friedman. Chapter 44, Private Law Enforcement, Medieval Iceland, and Libertarianism, is not comparable in size to the previous one, of course, but it is still quite large. Nevertheless, it is much easier to read because this time it is not theory, but history, and based on fiction at that.

In general, the age of the sagas in Iceland is almost my favorite historical period, perhaps second only to ancient Greece, so I edited the text with great pleasure; I wish it were always like this. I hope you will also enjoy the reading, and from there, you can go ahead and download the saga of Egil — and off you go, diving into the world of proto-ancap!

Translation of Eric Mack’s “Libertarianism.” Introduction.

The world is going into quarantine, and it is a good time to pay less attention to the news and instead engage in something more fundamental. If you read English fluently, I recommend getting acquainted with Eric Mack’s book Libertarianism, which our team pirated and posted on my site without asking the author. But if you prefer to read in Russian, you have a great opportunity to sponsor the translation of the book. For now, I am posting the introduction so that you can get a general impression of the text.

The book describes how global philosophical thought arrived at the ideas of libertarianism, how these ideas were formulated, what criticism they faced, and how that criticism is countered. While Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom or Molynieux’s Practical Anarchy are more applied works that may be debatable in some details, here we are in the space of more or less pure theory.

The language of the book is quite heavy, but we are not making an academic edition, so we will adapt the author’s speech as much as possible so that it remains somewhat readable.

In total, the translation will require approximately 75 thousand rubles. For now, I am ready to accept only bitcoins at the address already known to you 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo , but as much as I am able, I am also looking into anonymous fiat payment systems and perhaps soon you will have a relatively simple way to send money in fiat.

In what direction and by what methods will protection against hacker groups develop in the world of free cities / ECU?

After all, finding such villains is not enough; you also need to compel them to stop, and in most cases I can imagine, they will be reliably protected by their contracts.

анонимный вопрос

And in a world where there is a state monopoly on violence, and in a world where the enforcement of rights is handled by private parties, and even where, as discussed in a recent post, violent collections are extremely limited, the strategy for fighting hacking groups is generally the same: to increase the cost of the attack.

To jump on a trendy topic, let’s liken the activity of a hacking group to the spread of an epidemic. You can invest in individual protection, you can make the transmission of the infection more difficult, or you can find its source.

A hacking attack can cause irreparable harm immediately. For example, a hacker steals your private keys, and your bitcoins vanish to someone else’s address. A virus can also encrypt your disk and demand money for decryption. If you send the money, the data will either be decrypted or not, depending on the strain you were infected with. An attack can also simply cause noticeable inconvenience, as in the case of a DDoS attack, for instance. For the state, catching hackers is long and expensive, and the barrier to entry into the market for such attacks is not particularly high. For a private individual, finding a hacker and preparing a body of evidence would also be costly. Thus, it is unlikely that the cyber-epidemic situation in a stateless society would be fundamentally better.

Since the cost of catching a hacker is high and the probability of success is not very great, there is every reason to impose quite large fines, in addition to damages, on those unlucky few who are actually caught. You can read about the principles of calculating fines in “The Mechanics of Freedom,” in the recently published Chapter 43.

What happens if a hacker is caught, but nothing can be seized from them? For example, they claim they forgot the wallet key. There are no legal grounds to apply thermo-rectal cryptoanalysis, and besides, it provides no guarantee of a result, as the key may indeed be lost. In this case, the only option is to impose installment payments on them, and let them compensate as new legal earnings appear. Or, perhaps, they will decide to speed up the process by remembering the key.

For the end user, I would recommend passive protection methods and insurance. As for the actual catching of hackers, let insurance companies pay for it on a systemic basis if they deem it a market-efficient measure.

Doomsday Weapon and NAP, a discussion

Recently, I published a post in Bitarch’s column stating that current trends in technological development are easily extrapolated into the near future, and based on them, we see that the capabilities of private individuals to carry out indiscriminate mass killings continue to grow and could well reach the level of a global threat. From this, the author concludes that to eliminate this threat, not only the institution of the state must be rejected, but also any other factors that potentially place people in a desperate position where there is no particular difference for them whether to die alone or to take all of humanity with them.

Bitarch then expanded on the topic on his VKontakte page, responding to a number of objections. The response boiled down to the idea that the threat is closer than one might assume and that, in general, we need to be more responsible. Unfortunately, this rhetoric added few substantial arguments—how is such a call for responsibility different from Greta Thunberg’s appeals? She also threatens global consequences if we do not all wake up right now.

After that, Bitarch released a third article, and this time proposed a more specific case for consideration. Imagine a dangerous asshole (Harvey Weinstein is used in the example) or an organization (let’s say, for example, ELF) who are given a severe punishment, and instead of accepting it humbly, they demand immediate pardon under the threat of releasing some unpleasant virus according to the dead hand principle. The virus would not kill humanity, but as we see from current events, it is capable of seriously damaging the economy.

Will the emergence of such threats lead to state power beginning to bend? Yes, of course. We have a great experimental state, Israel, which over time moved from the doctrine of “we do not negotiate with terrorists” to the doctrine of “we exchange one of our prisoners for a thousand of yours.” Thus, in states where there is a possibility of holding leaders politically accountable, they will bend to the demands of terrorists; and when the threats of terrorists acquire a global character, whether or not to negotiate with terrorists will cease to be the choice of a specific dictator, and even Putin, in such a scenario, would have to bargain. “I, for instance, agree to make certain concessions to the terrorists, but you, dear Western partners, should lift sanctions on me for such compliance, because as you know, terrorism is so unpredictable.”

Under ancap, this problem is simplified. The terrorist loses a subject for negotiations. Yes, he may be ready to indiscriminately exterminate several million people if his conditions are not met. But what conditions? To whom will he address them? There is no state. He could address, for example, the management of some corporation. Let’s say the same “elves” demand that the management of an oil company stop oil production, otherwise, there will be a coronavirus. After this, the board of directors resigns, and the subject of negotiations disappears again. Of course, this will not prevent the elves from launching an epidemic, but the goal of the terrorist act was slightly different.

Of course, means of protection against such threats will also be improved. For example, total transaction transparency could allow for the rapid location of a terrorist network and the neutralization of the dead hand threat. Or it might be possible to change the terrorist’s motivation. Or even local time-stopping. The debate over whose fantastic assumption will be realized first is quite fruitless. Bitarch claims that defense technologies develop significantly slower than attack technologies. Nevertheless, for some reason, the general level of violence is steadily declining, and if state-initiated violence is excluded from the statistics, it becomes practically negligible.

Therefore, it is not that I disregard the threat being discussed. I simply believe it is not very relevant to ancap, and as for postulating the necessity of outgrowing states, I have other sufficient arguments.

Doomsday Weapon