Right now, international neutral waters represent a curious space of partial ancap. While not being anyone’s property, they allow a vessel to remain almost entirely extraterritorial (a vessel is considered the territory of the flag state, and therefore the market has decided in favor of convenient flags—such states have large merchant fleets, sometimes without even bothering to have access to the sea).
That is precisely why, when ancap arrives on land, the changes at sea will be minimal. A vessel will remain the private property of its owner, fishing grounds will be jointly operated by fishing companies (and if they fail to carefully read Elinor Ostrom, the market will punish them), there will be an increased likelihood of encountering pirates in the straits (but a rich set of tools can be used against them), the water will remain salty, and the great garbage patch will remain localized in the Pacific Ocean, existing by the will of the prevailing currents.
As wild fish becomes more expensive, humanity will increasingly switch to farmed fish; as plastic becomes more expensive, there will be a growing temptation to fish it out of the ocean for recycling; as the population grows and seasteading becomes cheaper, a considerable part of the ocean may become the territorial waters of new floating islands; until then, it is unlikely that anyone will start carving it into small plots.
Modern ancaps see the future of the ocean, while states persist on land, something like this
It is interesting to consider this case from the perspective of ancap. At the same time, the parents are against it, and are already upset that the guy was sentenced to 48 years (which brings up the question of the victims; it turns out there is a conflict). And others claim that the girl could have been saved, and that she needed psychological help.
анонимный вопрос
I have already covered the topic of euthanasia in quite some detail. In itself, there is nothing criminal about a killing requested by the person being killed, but in order to prove the voluntary nature of the transaction and the capacity of the client, it is advisable to carry out certain legal procedures. From the circumstances of the case under consideration, it is clear only that there was indeed a request, but the awareness of the actions remains unproven.
Of course, in the absence of a state, it would be much easier for the girl to appear at a clinic accompanied by a notary, so that the latter could record her clearly expressed intention and the results of an examination by a psychologist confirming that she is of sound mind and memory, after which she would receive her lethal injection of heroin from a doctor and pass away peacefully with a blissful smile on her face. If the prediction from the song—that under ancap, we probably won’t need to die at all—does not come true, then personally, I expect to end my life in exactly this way in my old age.
In the case under consideration, there are too many circumstances that are very difficult to imagine when ancap is all around and there are no bans on euthanasia. I will start inventing how such a thing could happen, and you will respond by claiming that ancap is sheer cannibalism; well, screw you.
Well, there is no need to hire the first guy you meet on the street when there are doctors. There is no need to hide the fact of the killing if everything happened by agreement, and this can be easily confirmed. And finally, the parents have no right to demand retribution from a conscientious executor of a legally flawless contract.
Now, if you want me to consider specifically the case linked, where the state is still around, but for some reason my non-deciding opinion is important to you, then okay. I consider the perpetrator of the killing a jerk who didn’t step away from this slippery subject, although he had every opportunity to do so. If he was driven by curiosity, then I would be wary of such curious people—maybe next time he’ll decide to be curious with a knife in my guts. If he thought such things were fucking romantic, then he could have taken a second dose of heroin, and it would have been a double suicide in a beautiful Japanese style. If he just needed money, there are many more ethical ways to earn a living. Nevertheless, this is all, of course, not a reason for a half-century prison sentence; community service in a morgue would be quite sufficient.
I don’t want naturalistic images, just a beautiful tyan in the forest!
People often ask how a libertarian society can be built by coming to power through elections. I will not dwell in detail on whether a libertarian party can come to power through elections at all, because this is the weakest point of the entire idea.
What options for building a libertarian society can the LPR choose? Mikhail Svetov often mentions them in his lectures, so I will try to explain them in plain language and provide my own comments.
1) Federalization. Mikhail constantly praises the USA and Switzerland for their model of national organization, reminding us that the RF is also de jure a federation (but not de facto—due to the violation of the constitution by the state’s first person). In this case, it will be possible to test various models of libertarianism in different regions and transfer best practices from one to another. The advantage of this approach is that in the event of an error, the consequences will be limited to one region rather than spreading across the entire country.
2) Homesteads. The idea is borrowed from the history of the settlement of the USA, when settlers from Europe occupied vacant lands, and later the government recognized their property rights to these plots. Svetov proposes to distribute the uninhabited territories of Siberia and the Far East in this way, granting settlers the right to autonomy, as if they were colonizing Mars (and accordingly, the opportunity to experiment with various libertarian models). Successful practices from these regions could then be gradually transferred to the main part of the country. Although, judging by the comments on this idea, people are not very eager to move to regions with such a harsh climate and a total lack of infrastructure.
3) Minarchism. A gradual transition to ancap is carried out through the gradual reduction of state functions across the entire country at once (as if the RF were a unitary state, which it is de facto now). Svetov means exactly this path when he calls himself a “forced minarchist.” This immediately raises the question of the stability of minarchism as such, which is further amplified by the centralization of power. A single unsuccessful reform could easily incite the people’s rage and end the LPR’s time in power, which would then create a negative image for the entire libertarian idea in the eyes of the general public for a long time.
Personally, I would propose another option—federalization of the country (simply follow the current constitution of the RF, it’s already in there) and the creation of competing extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions within regions that have approved the experiment by referendum. As the model is refined and “pitfalls” are eliminated, the geography can be expanded, gradually making all of Russia libertarian.
To the last paragraph, I would like to add that an extraterritorial jurisdiction is extraterritorial precisely so as not to be limited by some narrow list of regions. Today, there is one extraterritorial jurisdiction in the world—the jurisdiction of the United States of America. This state does not care whose territory its citizen is on; they continue to exercise their jurisdiction over them. But it is, of course, not contractual.
Out of common sense, it would be right and fair to punish such a stunt immediately and force the poster to be taken down. Under a state, that is exactly what would happen. But what would happen under ancap?
Anonymous question (paid in the amount of 0.0005 BTC)
First of all, I want to apologize for not noticing the donation transferred on Thursday immediately, and therefore I am only answering now. I will try not to disappoint in the future.
Under a state, we actually see huge erotic images all over the city in the most prominent places, from billboards right in the middle of sidewalks to banners covering the entire side of a high-rise building. The image usually features some minimally dressed girl enjoying a Coca-Cola or checking how comfortable it is to sit on the hood of a sports car. I don’t know about feminists, but I like such advertising, especially now, because it reminds me of summer.
If tomorrow marketing research in focus groups shows that sales can be increased by advertising of a homoerotic nature, or scenes of violence, or something along those lines, then either we will soon see and gladly welcome fresh advertising imagery, or this will be preceded by lobbying work to obtain permission from the state to display such things, if it currently prohibits it directly.
But your question, in essence, concerned something slightly different. What if someone decided to place not an advertisement, but an image of a deliberately repulsive nature, which does not call for buying anything but simply evokes disgust? In a state, even if the current laws do not provide a ban on such things, the image can be dismantled by a simple order from some law enforcement agency, or, if it is a civilized state, there is a chance for a private lawsuit to succeed.
Quite some time ago, I wrote about some possibilities for harmonizing the urban environment under ancap; now I will consider a slightly different aspect.
In the absence of a state, a scandalous image will remain as long as the owner is willing to pay for it. Some will organize protest actions, call for a boycott, some will try to buy the building in order to destroy the image, some (the vast majority!) will limit themselves to flame wars on the internet, some might even risk pelting the owner of the object with eggs — and some will release souvenirs and begin to glorify the city’s new symbol. Imagine, a magnet of the Eiffel Tower, which was considered disgustingly ugly and people demanded its demolition in the early 20th century! Now imagine a magnet of our city’s fucking cunt-thing! Not much time will pass, and it will be impossible to imagine the city without this monument. The free market is always eclectic, and nowhere offline is this manifested as vividly as in the appearance of cities.
There is the Earth. Around the Earth is a certain near-Earth space where people regularly launch satellites. A satellite may fail on its own or disable another satellite, either as a result of targeted commands from its owners or as a result of many unpredictable natural factors.
What rules would govern the interaction of interested parties in this sphere under ancap? In essence, roughly the same as now. The legal frameworks in which property disputes regarding satellites and their mutual influence occur already largely correspond to free market principles: entities are equal and act on the basis of clearly defined agreements.
What would be the reaction now if someone began consciously shooting down other people’s satellites? The affected parties would try to prove this fact, the broader community of those potentially involved in the conflict would also be interested in such an investigation, and further, everyone would be interested in depriving the aggressor of the ability to continue the attacks, as well as recovering damages for the affected parties.
So, with the transition to ancap on Earth, little will fundamentally change in space. Except that currently, sections of the geostationary orbit are divided among states based on geographical criteria; were there no states, other agreements between players in the space industry would come into effect. Perhaps the simple principle of homesteading.
Well, alright. A considerable amount of time has passed, a huge amount of debris has accumulated in orbit—how will the market solve this problem? In general, what is trash for some is a valuable resource for others. Someone has already paid to launch mass into orbit. The temptation arises to use materials raised by someone else instead of launching one’s own. For now, this is commercially inefficient. The more debris there is in orbit, the lower the costs of extracting raw materials from space debris compared to launching.
Finally, it is worth noting that the accumulation of debris occurs only in sufficiently high orbits, while in low orbits, debris soon leaves orbit on its own and harmlessly burns up in the dense layers of the atmosphere. Thus, for low orbits, extending the lifespan of a satellite is more relevant than the accumulation of satellites that have already become debris.
Thus, in the space industry, one can see all the approaches humanity has developed in the fight against the problem of waste: increasing the service life of products, littering less, and recycling waste.
I first learned that such people existed in 2014, meeting them at an anti-war rally. It feels as though their best days are behind them, and they are gradually migrating toward ancap.
To some extent, ancom is achieved when almost the entire basket of typical consumer goods loses its scarcity due to the growth of labor productivity. You click a robot, it rushes off like a sprightly little boar, and brings back some beer. There is no point in owning something that is universally available.
All sorts of craft products can certainly be made for the sake of self-expression. Minimal societal administration is required. As for projects requiring resources that remain scarce, those remain under the purview of business, but most people are completely uninterested in that—they have domestic abundance and total legalization. So, if this version of ancap looks like ancom and quacks like ancom, why not call it ancom.
Despite the fact that most libertarians see nothing blameworthy or punishable in a woman having an abortion, there will clearly be significantly fewer abortions in a society dominated by anarcho-capitalism than there are now.
It is very simple. An abortion is not a benefit for a woman. It is always a kind of forced evil that a woman resorts to because she views continuing the pregnancy as an even greater evil. But under ancap, she will have far more alternatives to abortion.
Judge for yourself. One could place an advertisement stating that a child is being carried, the approximate birth date is such-and-such, and she is ready to sell guardianship rights and waive her parental rights. Of course, this advertisement could be phrased using various euphemisms, but the essence would be roughly the same: I am willing to endure pregnancy and childbirth if I am sure that my problems end there, although I would also like compensation for the costs incurred.
Of course, a commercial surrogate motherhood contract can be concluded now, although in a number of countries this practice is prosecuted by law. But even where it is legal, the subject is fraught with a heap of regulations, which greatly increases the costs of the procedure; consequently, many women will still prefer abortion as something more guaranteed and less troublesome. Moreover, processing paperwork is a lengthy matter, and the sooner an abortion is performed, the less damage is done to the woman’s body.
Finally, there are also medical grounds for abortion, such as when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, or the child is proven to be a carrier of a hereditary disease. Removing bioethical barriers to research could somewhat accelerate the resolution of problems in this area compared to current reality, but that is already starting to be guesswork.
The picture is blissful, like Jehovah’s Witness brochures. Choose ancap, save the children!
After all, these investments might not pay off by providing a skilled workforce in the future—if the person does not want to work for the company that “created” them.
анонимный вопрос
Indeed, an interesting topic. One entity invests funds and effort to create another entity, while the created entity has no debt to the creator, except perhaps a moral one. The question arises: what would compel the creator to invest resources into their creation?
At the same time, for some reason, you have no doubt that there won’t be a problem with parents; they will certainly be interested in investing in the creation of children who are more advanced from their point of view. But why, exactly?
For example, I am thinking about having a child and reading the price list for genetic modifications that can be made. Remove the predisposition to cancer and AIDS? Of course, I’ll take it; it’s much more reliable than health insurance and, if spread over a lifetime, far cheaper. We clean out hereditary diseases. Is it necessary? Of course. Tendency toward obesity? I’ll probably correct that; it will also pay off. Height? Eye color? Why bother? Well, only if these settings come in a general package, as not every parent will buy these modifications separately.
In other words, parents will primarily be interested in those modifications that save them—the parents’—expenses on raising the child. Secondly, those that in the long run could increase the child’s chances of success in life, although you can never guess what will be in market demand. Lastly, any matter of personal taste.
Why does a parent have a child and invest in them at all? For the joy of the upbringing process and satisfaction from the results of that upbringing. A child is a creative project that, if the devil doesn’t joke, might even bring commercial success.
Could such a creative project be undertaken, for example, not by a parent, but by a large company? Why not, but the motivation for the company’s founders would be the same: to get maximum satisfaction from the results of the upbringing. At the same time, in order for the free people produced by this company to also bring it some monetary profit, they must do so voluntarily. This means loyalty must be cultivated in them.
If a gene for blind love can be found, then perhaps the loyalty problem can be solved this way. But for some reason, I have a strong suspicion that this gene will turn out to be linked to genes responsible for intellectual development, meaning the overall life success of such a child would be small (especially since a child-production plant is unlikely to provide every graduate with significant starting capital).
Please leave the fantasies about growing competent specialists and subsequently keeping them in forced slavery to the communists; we are considering ancap here, and ancap is self-ownership.
So, if we are talking about market models for such enterprises, I would rather suggest looking toward existing private schools and universities. There, likewise, a gifted student can enter a school for free and even have a scholarship, while the institution is funded by an endowment fund. Former students who have succeeded in life contribute to the fund entirely voluntarily. The only difference in our case would be that gifted children are not sought out initially, but produced.
It seems to me that this is a quite pleasant future in which children are predominantly wanted, and they will be far less likely to disappoint those who invested in them.
Sweet children, but that’s not how it works under ancap
Studying libertarianism, I still haven’t understood why the “ancap” ideal model of social organization is better than some socialist utopias from the 18th-19th centuries.
In utopias, there are hypothetical people with a different morality—free, equal, happy, and always ready to help one another. A number of conditions that are clearly fantastical in modern realities are taken as given; there is no clear program for transitioning to such a wonderful society.
It is roughly the same with you, but there is exploitation, economic dependence, and so on. A number of rather debatable assumptions are taken as given—about the NAP, about the idea that something resembling affluent consumerism will emerge from the free competition of guys with guns, and about the need to convince people that “collective subjects” do not exist.
There is no transition program to the “better” social order (let me remind you that the caricatured mass-culture perceptions of leftists as lovers of mass shootings came, firstly, from Cold War era propaganda, and secondly, from the practice of building an industrial society in Russia).
Why prefer inhuman ancap fantasies to the humane utopian fantasies of men from the 18th-19th centuries?
Vasily Vasiliev
Oof. Well, let me try to answer.
Why prefer the utopia of anarcho-capitalism specifically? It does not require the emergence of some special humane “new man” for its implementation, it is ready to work with any starting situation, and it quickly and guaranteed makes people’s lives wealthier and more prosperous than they were at the start. And, what is not unimportant, this is easily verifiable in practice.
Suppose we have Somalia. A country devastated by a socialist dictatorship and numerous wars. The state is abolished. People begin to organize their lives independently. They have a very short planning horizon, so they are quite ready to obtain resources from neighbors through direct violence. This means they have to spend significant resources on self-defense. Neighborhoods bristle with checkpoints; movement requires convoys. Hobbes arrives and strolls around business-like. “So, what do we have here? A war of all against all? Well done, boys. Now, who here isn’t fighting? Get to fighting, damn it, immediately!”
Fine, the last pre-war canned meat will soon run out, something needs to be eaten, but there’s not much to take from the neighbors either. Sooner or later, people will have to disperse and divert some individuals from the exciting process of shooting neighbors from ambushes to the conduct of boring and banal farming. And suddenly, someone is herding livestock, someone is growing vegetables, someone is running a gas station, someone is maintaining mobile communications and the internet, and someone is pirating. The difference in starting conditions (some have the sea nearby, others a savanna) leads to the division of labor. The division of labor gives rise to trade. Trade brings peace. Peace increases the planning horizon. The elegant fruits of tactical thinking fade into the past. Yesterday’s brave warrior today drives tourists on safari, because it is more profitable than arranging a safari on the tourists. Yesterday’s pirate today peacefully catches fish and takes divers for rides, because he’s had enough of fighting. And his pirate tales give him a charisma bonus and generous tips. Hobbes cries quietly on the beach: his beloved Leviathan never emerged from the sea due to a lack of demand.
What could hinder this rosy scenario? Firstly, the actions of neighbors who stubbornly wish to install a state on this territory. So far, society resists such attempts, but this consumes strength, and the path to ancap becomes thornier. Secondly, long-standing and venerable traditions of redistribution. If you’ve risen a bit—be so kind as to share with your clan comrades. They covered your skin during the war, and in general, don’t stick your head out. Over time, this tradition will evolve into insurance companies and various mutual aid funds operating on a voluntary basis, but initially, simply due to poverty, such redistribution will greatly slow the development of the institution of private property.
Ancap will establish itself more easily the harder it is to maintain a subsistence economy on territory liberated from the state. If all the resources for survival are right there, then why trade with neighbors? You have to shoot at neighbors; they are enemies, they are coming to take our beer and women. So, in the jungles of the Amazon, ancap will not be seen for a long time even without a state, but where living conditions are more diverse—where could it possibly go?
And what is wrong with socialist utopias? That there is no natural transition to them; a revolution is absolutely necessary, which will forcibly establish freedom, equality, and brotherhood—even if without mass shootings, the French managed quite well with the guillotine.
They seem like savages—yet they have trigger control
Hmm. Explain how you intend to verify the truth of a contract, that it existed, if there is no explicit evidence of it (no people, no audio or video recordings)? Or how will you prove that they are not forged (for example, an email)?
Oral contract
Nothing about a past event can be said to have actually happened with a hundred percent guarantee, even when it comes to natural phenomena, let alone human activity.
So-called laws of nature are general principles derived from observations based on incomplete induction. Any documents could have been drawn up and signed retroactively, or falsified in some other way. Witness testimonies are systematically mendacious. Banknotes are forged. Even the almighty blockchain cannot fully guarantee that you won’t be cheated with a money transfer to your wallet.
So signatures on a contract, a herd of witnesses, security camera footage, an oath on the constitution, and so on—these are merely additional arguments presented so that the judge believes that yes, some event in the past did take place. After which the judge makes a decision: I, so-and-so, stake my reputation and assert that such-and-such an event occurred, and from this I draw such-and-such conclusions.
And if you have neither a signed contract nor witnesses to the agreement, but it is known that until now you have given no reason to doubt your words, and in this case you behaved as if a contract had been concluded, then there is a considerable probability that the judge will believe your assertion about the fact that an oral contract was concluded, and will rule in your favor.
Yes, I admit that within one state legislative system or another, a judge may be expressly forbidden from considering transactions true if they are not certified in the manner established by the state. But when you ask how we intend to proceed in the absence of reliable evidence, it can be assumed that the question is actually being asked about ancap.
