Тег: Ancap

How will private property rights to mobile communication frequencies be determined under anarcho-capitalism, and can they even be property from a libertarian perspective?

анонимный вопрос

I will start with the second part of the question. Of course, technically nothing prevents competing companies from placing a huge number of cell towers side by side that operate in the same frequency range, but this would lead to collisions, and the equipment would be unable to perform its primary purpose—providing mobile communication. Therefore, it can be confidently stated that the working frequency range for mobile communication is a scarce resource. And anything that is a scarce resource can be converted into property.

Now let’s move to the question of determining property rights for this peculiar object in the absence of an external regulator. There are only three permissible ways of acquiring property without violating libertarian principles: primary appropriation, purchase, and compensation for damages. It remains to understand the specifics of applying these methods to frequencies.

Technical characteristics of using frequencies for mobile communication (I am simplifying greatly, after all, this is a post about economics, not technology):
1. There is a specific frequency range for which equipment is manufactured. This range is optimal for mobile communication based on radio wave propagation characteristics: on the one hand, the phone antenna can be quite compact; on the other, waves do not attenuate too strongly in the environment and allow for sufficiently reliable reception indoors, shielded from the signal source by walls.
2. Using the entire frequency band within which mobile devices operate allows for the simultaneous transmission of a certain finite amount of information. The wider the frequency range used by a particular mobile operator, the wider the communication channel they can provide to their users, and consequently, the more users they can connect. More accurately, the less frequently they need to place towers to serve their users.
3. In addition to mobile operators, other companies may use the same frequency ranges for their own needs.

So, a certain mobile operator wants to enter a region. They estimate the tower density they minimally need at the start, depending on the population density in different parts of the region, infrastructure (communication is desirable along main highways, even if few people live there for some reason), and so on. Another parameter in determining tower density turns out to be the width of the frequency range the operator will use.

If there is no particular competition for frequencies, then there is no problem. The operator takes a large unused band and begins to exploit it. Gradually, competitors arrive, and this continues until the free ranges are exhausted. What should operators do now? First, they can abandon the idea of entering a region with such high competition and expand where competition is lower, but this is not always convenient, as subscribers want communication from their operator in all regions to avoid dealing with roaming. Second, they can buy a range from someone who is using it. Since the early adopters grabbed frequencies with a large margin, operators may initially agree to such offers at reasonable prices. Third, they can agree on the joint use of existing frequencies and equipment, which reduces costs for each party to the agreement. Such a precedent, by the way, occurred in Russia during the construction of fourth-generation networks: for them to work productively in densely populated areas, frequency bands must be quite wide and continuous, and so operators began to conclude agreements on the joint use of their ranges. The funniest part is that they had to obtain permission from the state for this, although, it would seem, what business is it of theirs.

Finally, a fourth possible tactic for an outsider is to ignore agreements and simply start placing their own towers and seizing frequencies on a first-come, first-served basis. As in, whether you like it or not, I am now also working on this frequency, and if you don’t like it—move. This is a declaration of war, which eventually ends in one agreement or another. War is a very ruinous enterprise that also damages one’s reputation. Judge for yourself: if subscribers of an existing operator begin to experience connection problems and the operator explains to them that this is because an outsider has arrived and is sticking in their towers, the outsider will have to offer simply revolutionary low tariffs for users to feel even a semblance of loyalty toward them. I do not rule out that occasionally such a seizure of frequencies will be economically justified, but far more often (ancap provides all the tools for this), the delusional will simply go bankrupt.

A characteristic intermediate stage of the industry’s extensive development: everyone has their own tower, but they all stand side by side. At the stage of cost reduction, we will see all these toys on one Christmas tree.

Continuation of the discussion about reputation

Bitarch replies:

You wrote a review of my reputation proposal, but it seems you didn’t understand the exact essence of the idea. You write:

As for the system you proposed, people will be willing to take its recommendations into account only if, for some reason, it becomes very important to them that a person, for the sake of increasing their reputation, be willing to contribute to charity.

The main goal of the system is not to show one’s generosity to others, but to create a mechanism for the value of a reputational entity, which will then be a pity to lose. Game theory comes into play, making deceiving other people economically disadvantageous. The original idea was proposed by the developers of the OpenBazaar project; I modified it for application in real society.

Reputation Pledges
OpenBazaar implements proof-of-burn in a different way. On the OpenBazaar network, users can choose to be pseudonymous, meaning you don’t know their true identity. As such, it can sometimes be difficult to determine if they are trustworthy or should be avoided. A reputation system is important to help inform the network of which participants have acted honestly in the past, and which haven’t. There are several facets to the OpenBazaar reputation system, which is still being built, and you can read about the overall system here. One part of this system is Reputation Pledges. This means that a user has chosen to prove their commitment to their OpenBazaar identity by burning a certain amount of bitcoin. The act of burning coins shows the network that the user is committed to their identity because they’ve now expended resources on it, and if they incur a negative reputation then those resources will have gone to waste.


https://openbazaar.org/blog/proof-of-burn-and-reputation-pledges

Indeed, that’s roughly how reputation works. “No one remembers McFlurry the bridge builder! But once I fucked a goat…”

Thank you for the clarification that charity in the proposed engine is not that important, the main thing is the willingness itself to confirm one’s reliability through the expenditure of resources. This could indeed prove important for an outsider to gain traction on a particular trading platform. They could spend money on advertising, or instead, or in addition, spend it on boosting their karma, and this would also perfectly demonstrate their willingness to play fair.

But I thought it important to note that it is pointless to try and stretch any such mechanisms to fit all cases in life. A person can be honest and respectable, like Alexei Karenin, but his wife will still throw herself under a train because in her eyes, he is an inhuman machine.

— I don’t understand why you hate me so much? What have I done wrong to you?
— Fuck a goat, Onegin!

Reputation under ancap, part 2

Yesterday I published a model of a reputation engine for ancap that was submitted to me for review, and today I will tell you what I think about it

I will start, as usual, with a definition. Reputation is the conclusion drawn by a potential counterparty regarding a certain subject and the prospects of interacting with them, based on the full extent of their knowledge about that subject. Thus, reputation is not a property of the subject. My reputation in the eyes of socialism-chan and my reputation in the eyes of minarchism-chan are two completely different reputations, and the difference between them is no less than the difference between the concepts of “execution” and “a fine”.

Many have heard about the Chinese social credit system. The state collects a vast amount of the most diverse data about a citizen, then using an incredibly complex and opaque algorithm, it puts two and two together and concludes how reliable this citizen appears to be to the state. The higher the rating, the more freedoms it is willing to grant the citizen; the lower it is, the more it restricts them. The goal of this entire system is social engineering—the cultivation of the perfect human of the future. I don’t know if market offers for “boosting” ratings have appeared yet, but if not, they simply must appear soon.

Everyone knows about the Russian Unified State Exam (USE) system. The state forces schoolchildren to take a test of monstrous proportions, and then forces universities to admit applicants based on a single criterion: the result of this test. I don’t need to tell you what phenomenal results are demonstrated in this test by natives of certain national republics.

Examples can be multiplied, but I think it is already clear that the forceful imposition of one’s own assessments of someone’s reputation on others is not the true Tao. It’s not even about the fact that such systems will be attempted to be cheated, but about the coercion itself. In ancap, however, any system that collects certain data about people and derives assessments from it can be implemented only if people voluntarily begin to use that system.

How do I envision a near-ideal reputation system? Something like this:
— Siri, look at the proposal from Bitarch; can this guy be trusted?
— I have performed an express analysis of the proposal itself and what is available about Bitarch in open sources. Based on your previous preferences, Ancap-sama, the probability that you will trust him is 85%. The probability that he will betray your trust should cooperation begin is 7%. You specified a trust threshold of 80%; may I respond to him affirmatively, or would you like to review the details?
— Give me the details.
— Hi!

Of course, just as people try to get the maximum score on the USE or the maximum social rating in China, they will want to optimize their requests for the reputation assessment system I use—in this example, Siri. But they will strive to earn my trust in the same way now, when a lot of data has to be collected manually.

The more routine I want to remove from my life, the more typical decisions will be entrusted to my virtual consigliere. But first, one way or another, I will have to train this neural network on my preferences; otherwise, the result is unlikely to consistently please me.

Siri, scratch my back, please!

As for the system you proposed, people will be willing to take its recommendations into account only if it somehow becomes very important to them that a person, for the sake of increasing their reputation, be willing to contribute to charity. I doubt such a quality would concern me if, for example, I am looking for a one-night stand or choosing a model of hiking boots. But if I need to find a home for a litter of homeless kittens, then that’s a different story.

Reputation under ancap

Bitarch (topic disclosure paid in the amount of 0.005btc)

Today I have an unusual format. In essence, this is not about answering a question, but a review of a full, detailed proposal. Therefore, I would like to split the topic into two posts. Today’s post will outline the proposal itself, and in tomorrow’s, I would like to provide a detailed overview of the topic of reputation and the construction of reputation systems. Discussion in the comments is highly welcome.

As we all understand, under ancap, the institution of reputation will play a significant role. Imagine that a person is not yet well-known in the community or wants to atone for their past “sins” by creating or restoring a reputation. There is an organization or a blockchain project to which this person can make a donation and receive in return an ID with reputation points. They can show this to other people when conducting transactions to increase trust. If they cheat, the victim can file a complaint with this system, and the fraudster will lose the reputation points for which they previously made a donation (more precisely, their ID with negative reviews will be useless for concluding deals in the future). To exclude fraud on the part of the victim, the reputation service may also require them to make a donation of a similar amount (and they will also make their own reputation ID useless if they lie and are caught). The result is a reputation system in which it is not profitable for the parties to deceive each other from the perspective of game theory. The donations received can be directed toward funding public goods (schools, hospitals, roads, science, ecology, etc.), simultaneously finally dismantling the main argument of statists against libertarians: “If a person has no insurance and no friends, who will take care of them in old age, provide medical treatment, free education for children, and so on?”.

How do you evaluate this system?

If anarchism is historically a left-wing movement, isn’t ancap an eclectic current?

I would say that the “left-wing movement” is precisely a typically eclectic trend, as it is a set of completely incompatible concepts. Here you have freedom of expression and political correctness. The absence of exploitation and high taxes. The right to work and war against strikebreakers. Freedom of conscience and sharia. The dictatorship of the proletariat and parliamentary democracy.

Similarly, anarchism is eclectic if considered without specifying terms via hyphens. The only thing all anarchist trends have in common is the indication of the possibility and desirability of liberating society from the state. Otherwise, anarchists have a complete muddle, from “property is sacred” to “property is theft,” from apologists of the labor theory of value to marginalists, from those who see the basis of all prosperity in the division of labor to those who see in it the root of all evil.

Anarcho-capitalism can be quite clearly depicted as the intersection of sets. You know, all those circles with shaded areas, reminiscent of the currently fashionable multicolored blobs. Everything that does not contradict economic theory is taken from anarchism, and everything that does not contradict the NAP is taken from capitalism. The result is a quite coherent doctrine, practically cleansed of eclecticism. This is easily verified: ask the same questions to a wide variety of ancaps, and you will receive answers that are very close in content. Such a trick would not work with eclectic doctrines.

I could have drawn two blobs who are friends by organism, but I’m too lazy

Is a state necessary, what functions can (should) it perform, and why is minarchy not enough?

anonymous question

You know, one could trivially answer that the state is unnecessary because — and then follows a long list of problems it causes. One could refer to the fact that the smaller the scale of state intervention, the more the economy flourishes. But values are subjective, and one cannot answer for everyone that the state is unnecessary. There are plenty of people who love having a boot in their backside right now, and many demand that it be shoved even deeper. Minarchy isn’t enough for them; they want socialism; they were taught in school that under socialism there is liberty, equality, and fraternity, or at least order and security.

voluntarily and with a song!

Nevertheless, such an approach doesn’t work as an argument either. There is always a high percentage of conformists in society who will approve of the status quo, no matter how strange it is, so claiming that the majority sincerely and actively desires the state—to the point that they would come out to defend it—would also be rash.

Asking state representatives whether the state is necessary, and how about shifting a bit here to free up a small plot for ancap — well, that would be completely naive.

So, to get a correct answer to the question of whether the state is necessary, one must first achieve the appearance of a normally relatively pure ancap somewhere, and then let the market decide via migration and monetary flows. If people wishing “to make the state great again” consistently appear under ancap, then the state is necessary. For example, simply because one needs to have someone to grumble at. But if after a generation of living under ancap, the state is perceived as a strange, ancient, barbaric institution like trial by ordeal or some other omerta, then it means the state as such is not needed by humans; it’s just that it happens to exist now, and many put up with it.

Will there be some kind of protection against these very pyramids and other variants of “fuck-business” under ancap?

Recent experience with “Cashberry” shows that the institution of reputation doesn’t really work here, and people, despite obvious facts, continue to pour money into it.

anonymous question

I will refer to a classic. Sergey Mavrodi, when launching another of his contraptions, explained in detail that existing money is a financial pyramid, and that what he was doing was exactly the same kind of pyramid, only better, because it brought a higher percentage. So it cannot be said that those who invest in hyips (High Yield Investment Projects) are unaware of anything. On the contrary, there is a fairly wide circle of people who are enthusiastically engaged in all this, scouring the web for fresh pyramids to enter as early as possible and manage to jump off before the scam happens. Then, referral networks begin to form; after some time come the first joyful reviews from those who managed to recover their deposit; and after some more time, it all ends, and people look for something new.

Gambling is great; it brings people joy and a sense of fullness of life. The market always decides for gambling; it grows through the asphalt even in a situation of complete and unconditional prohibition. You simply shouldn’t get in its way; let it compete peacefully with other types of expensive leisure. All these considerations apply fully to such a variety of gambling as financial pyramids or lotteries.

Let’s return to ancap. The issuance of securities, tokens, debt obligations, lottery tickets is not regulated at all. In other words, there is complete freedom for all kinds of hyips. Those who need exactly that do not need any protection; they are already aware that this is a high risk. The question, therefore, comes down to how the situation will change under ancap, compared to the current state of affairs, for the case of “a person looking for a reliable investment tool and trying not to run into a hyip.”

You know, in terms of the tools used to differentiate one investment product from another, little will change. You will still need to carefully study every offer, use logic, research the notorious reputation, and so on. Perhaps the market will decide for the many rating agencies, including those working on order, or perhaps people won’t be willing to pay for such things, and you’ll have to gather all the information yourself.

But the loudest alarm bell telling an investor not to get involved is, of course, the referral program. If a project pays for attracting clients, the probability that it is not a pyramid is non-zero, but if you are looking for an investment project specifically, why do you need this nonsense where the main profit is expected from attracting new people rather than from the investments themselves? Tell the agitator to get lost and look for something else.

Is vigilantism possible under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

This is also a fairly popular question; early answers can be found under the tag “court”, so it will be difficult to provide something new, but I will try.

Right here, I defined a court as a legal institution within which a conflict between parties is resolved by a third party, with the clarification that under ancap, a court can resolve conflicts only within the scope of the authority delegated to it by the parties to the conflict. I have also previously referred to the legal principle that no one can be a judge in their own cause.

Thus, formally, vigilantism is not a legal procedure, and the question could be closed on that basis, but the real world introduces its own corrections.

First, a person is fully entitled to exercise vigilantism upon themselves. They repented for some of their old actions and settled their accounts with life. Or decided to give ten bitcoins to charity. Or rewarded themselves with a couple of cocktails for meeting a deadline. This is vigilantism: the person evaluated their own actions, appointed the measure of retribution, and carried out the sentence themselves.

Second, in a conflict situation, one party may surrender themselves to the judgment of the other party. For example, I messed up, I surrender myself to your judgment, decide fairly how I should compensate for the damage. This could be an act of trust that strengthens further relations, an act of recklessness that lays the foundation for a future deep grievance, or a subtle manipulation designed to touch the other party and force them to forgive—it all depends on a multitude of circumstances, but in any case, such a deal also remains voluntary, and therefore legal, and this can also be called vigilantism.

Third, one of the parties to the conflict may decide to inflict some damage on the second party and be satisfied with that. I was overcharged at a restaurant, they were rude in response to a remark, I calmly walk outside, smash the display window, and leave. This is also vigilantism: the restaurant was sentenced by me to the destruction of its window. Is this a legal procedure? No. Is it possible under ancap? Yes. Will the conflict be exhausted after the application of this procedure? Quite possibly, if the passive party to the conflict, upon rational reflection, decides that to hell with it, it’s cheaper than going to court.

The broken windows theory in all its glory

Readings of Adam Smith

I hope that you are already gradually preparing for the Adam Smith Readings, which will take place in Moscow on November 4. Not only is it the largest annual Russian libertarian conference, but this year is its anniversary; it is celebrating its tenth year and should be held at a particularly high level. So, if you have the opportunity, be sure to go; you won’t regret it. You will hear Ekaterina Schulmann, the best Russian popularizer of political science, Natalia Zubarevich, who knows and can talk about the situation in Russian regions magnificently, and Vera Kichanova, our answer to state-oriented urbanists. And a few other good guys)))

And while the Readings haven’t started yet, be sure to subscribe to the Readings YouTube channel, where you can find not only recordings of previous Readings, but also some other equally interesting presentations.

I want to recommend several recordings from there that personally made a great impression on me and seem very important.

First, of course, is Dmitry Butrin, “Non-Cooperative Games”, a report from the seventh Readings in 2015. A very refreshing cold shower for everyone involved in politics. It may cause some rejection, but try to digest it. Especially relevant for those preoccupied with party building.

Secondly, a webinar by Alexander Rakviashvili that is quite similar in message: “Libertarian Reforms: Why It Is So Difficult”. This is especially recommended for those who, in the survey on preferred methods of achieving ancap chose the political path.

And thirdly (three is a sacred number for Russia), for variety, I will mention the optimistic report by Sergey Seleev, “Garage Economy in the Russian Province”, delivered at the eighth Readings in 2016. Unfortunately, the recording quality is poor, and the presentation did not make it into the frame. You can consider this an allegory for ancap, which, under current conditions, generally looks quite unsightly.

I hope the proposed selection not only allowed you to look at the surrounding reality differently, but also tells you something about me.

In closing, I will mention that money is required to hold the Readings. As is easy to see, the donation wallet is currently not very full, with only 6 transactions totaling 0.01429703btc. I urge you to add more there, as far as possible. 

How will issues of transit territory be resolved under ancap?

(now this is called an easement, i.e., the owner of private land is required by law to provide passage/access through their property for transit traffic, the installation of water pipes, sewage, access to water, etc.)

Personally, I think there will be an analogue of the concept of neutral (international) waters in maritime law for land transit, but how will they decide which part of the land can be considered an easement?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

It is quite easy to imagine how, under conditions of the absolutization of private property rights to land, some landowner demands absolute inviolability of the land, refusing to enter into any negotiations. A person has the right to misanthropy as long as they are willing to pay for it and do not encroach on someone else’s property.

However, it is very difficult to imagine that commercial companies, especially those with multiple owners, would adhere to such misanthropy. As a rule, the goal of a company is to make a profit, not dominance and self-assertion. So, if there is a demand for the installation of utilities across a company’s territory, whether it be a cable or a path, this will generally be perceived as an opportunity to profit by meeting that demand.

Under ancap, any voluntary transactions are legitimate; as for forced ones, they can also easily occur, but apologies and compensation are assumed for them by default.

David Friedman, in “The Machinery of Freedom,” gives as an example of completely justified behavior a lost traveler who breaks into someone’s empty house to make a phone call and call for help, but upon leaving, leaves cash in the house in an amount sufficient to compensate for the inconvenience caused.

But we don’t need to go that far when we have our own taiga nearby. Any winter hut in the taiga is private property, but the doors are not locked, and there is always a certain supply of firewood, grains, and other equipment stored there. Any random passerby can spend the night in a winter hut, and before leaving, they replenish the supplies for the next visitor. This is the established spontaneous order. No one specifically engages in enforcing its observance; these rules of courtesy simply help people live. A society that does not develop such orders is less successful.

Warm, sated, and spontaneous order

Similarly, in Rome, the very concept of easement was invented without any state, within the framework of private law, and there are no grounds to believe that a stateless society of the future would be less sensible than a stateless society of the past.

Thus, under ancap, in sparsely populated areas, the needs of people regarding transit territories will be guarded by a conceptual “bear prosecutor” who upholds the “law of the taiga,” and in densely populated areas—by the desire to obtain market benefit from providing transit through one’s territory. As for the plots of the few misanthropes, who, although they will inevitably be encountered like any other rude people, in the vast majority of cases can be bypassed via some alternative routes.