Тег: Ancap

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.

From a libertarian point of view, how should one deal with a neighbor who makes noise throughout the whole house during the night?

After all, he does not actually violate the non-aggression principle, but for reasons of common sense, his actions should nevertheless be stopped.

anonymous question (paid in the amount of 0.0001btc)

How does a human neighbor differ from other annoying factors, such as a thunderstorm, a highway under the windows, flying planes, barking dogs, and so on? Only in that you can try to reach an agreement with them, whereas the most realistic way to avoid the other annoying factors is soundproofing.

But the neighbor, in turn, also understands that by coming to them and demanding that the noise stop, you are demonstrating double standards, because if you had actively protected yourself from the noise of the other sources mentioned above, then the noise from behind the wall would not bother you, as its level would be below the threshold.

Thus, after hearing your requests regarding reducing the volume level, they will expect a deal. The subject of the deal may turn out to be the most unexpected thing.

You can state that since they are celebrating so wildly that it’s impossible to sleep, they should pour you a drink as well—and join the party.

You can ask when the banquet is expected to end, and, having received an answer, declare that you are willing to tolerate it until then, but if they continue after that, they should be prepared for the harshest sanctions, from “I’ll shit under your door” to “I’ll smash the door with an axe.”

You can agree on monetary compensation, enough to spend the night in a quiet hotel nearby…

In general, there are plenty of options.

But, of course, you may also fail to reach an agreement. This will mean that you and your neighbor were unlucky with each other: you had a grievance, you initiated a conflict, the conflict was not resolved, and escalation is possible in the future, which entails costs for both parties. And no daddy-mommy-state will help; you are adults now, it’s time to learn how to negotiate on your own.

How does anarcho-capitalism view the actual situation in Russia?

анонимный вопрос

Here, I really want to start with an extended quote from a source I constantly refer to—our Political Science-chan, Ekaterina Schulmann:

As for the actual state of affairs, generally speaking, the Russian person is a spontaneous libertarian, but does not know it and would never call themselves such. In reality, they are very inclined toward libertarian values, namely: they do not trust the state, state institutions, or law enforcement agencies. In general, they trust no one except personal acquaintances. They tend to rely only on themselves and their closest relatives. Accordingly, they would like it if no one messed with them, if they were left in peace and not told how to live. In other words, these libertarian values are very strong in Russian people.

Ekaterina Schulmann

At the same time, the opposite view is entirely justified: Russia is a country of ingrained social-democratic values, and the ideal state for the majority of Russians is the Scandinavian countries, with low levels of inequality, comfortable prisons, officials on bicycles, and broad public discussion of all issues—in short, a proper Soviet government as it should be, according to the project documentation. The high taxes and strict regulations attached to this model are perceived as a fully justified price for this paternalistic paradise.

And finally, it would be strange not to mention the viewpoint that the Russian person is a sucker and a doormat, burdened by Stockholm syndrome and learned helplessness. Their motto is “initiative is punishable”, and not “punishable by being ordered to implement the initiative”, as in the ideal Confucian China, but literally punishable by a blow to the head so that they don’t stick their neck out. They harbor no illusions about the benevolence of state power, but justify the actions of officials by believing that they themselves would behave the same way in their place.

The first category—these are our natural allies. They might not provide active support because they are busy with their own peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs, but at the very least, at the right moment, they will look away and not snitch on people for their peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs.

The second category—these are our natural allies. They understand the importance of jointly solving local problems, the ability to negotiate, and the desire to unite around common interests, rather than simply on the principle of “us versus them.”

The third category—these are our natural allies. Gradually, it dawns on them that an official is not some inexorable force, omnipotent and omniscient. An official is a ridiculous idiot who doesn’t dare take a step without instructions, yet treats orders according to the principles of “wait to execute—they’ll cancel it” and “if you can shift the responsibility—shift it.” Finally, these people realize that an official immediately loses all their superior arrogance when facing a crowd one-on-one. And then officials can be peacefully pelted with snowballs, as in Volokolamsk, or subjected to “garbage lustrations,” as in Ukraine, but if things get really heated, it can even lead to defenestrations, which our Slavic brothers in the Czech Republic loved to use.

mm, lustrations!

Of course, sometimes with allies like these, you don’t even need enemies. Of course, such allies are too easily lured by communist slogans, and then they will go beat up the liberalists and the bourgeois. Therefore, as unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to perform the important work of creating the correct image of the enemy in these people’s heads. This is precisely why Mikhail Svetov, with his propaganda of hatred toward the nomenklatura, is also doing important work; I couldn’t do it, I find it much more pleasant to tell various optimistic tales about how we can organize ourselves.

Alright, so I’m telling my mom about ancap, and she says, like, she doesn’t want the nineties with scammers and gangsters again. How do I hammer ancap into her head?

Vasya from the third entrance

No matter how much one wants to always take the straightest path to a goal, if the interlocutor’s head is already shaped like a screw-hole, it’s pointless to hammer something straight in there; you have to screw it in.

This is where marketing comes to our rescue, with all its techniques aimed at increasing sales. For example, it makes sense to understand exactly what pain lies behind a mother’s objections. Because what is the point of talking about social safety nets in private companies in a free market in an affluent society, if her pain isn’t caused by the demise of Soviet social security, but, say, by savings burned in some financial pyramid, or by shootouts in the streets. Then, we work with that pain.

Pyramids

Explain that the most important reason for the rapid rise of pyramids was the need to protect one’s savings from hyperinflation, and hyperinflation was caused by the state’s frantic emission of money. Consumers never demand inflationary money; they much prefer stability, or even deflation, so that they can simply put money in a piggy bank and have it retain its value for decades.

And this is Bitcoin, Mom. Designed by hardcore ancaps specifically for that very purpose. Even gold, as a tool for long-term value preservation, works worse, because gold production can be increased in the event of a surge in demand, but you can’t pull that trick with Bitcoin. Well, and if there are cryptocurrencies, then we can boldly get rid of all these central banks, hooray.

Shootouts

Explain that in the wild nineties, the state by no means stopped regulating issues of civilian weapons and establishing rules for resolving conflicts. The police were happy to pressure law-abiding citizens, giving them neither the means to effectively oppose gangsters nor the ability to sue them, but at the same time, they readily backed down before any moderately brazen thug. Naturally, this created a powerful economic incentive for criminal behavior and provided no reward for striving toward a peaceful resolution of issues. In effect, this means that in the nineties, the state worked with all its meager power for the aggressors, until it managed to somehow squeeze the preferential right to banditry away from private aggressors.

Tell me, if you were cornered on the street now with a demand for your wallet, and you pulled a Glock out of your purse and shot the robbers, would you perhaps be praised for riddding society of dangerous criminals? No, you would be charged with illegal possession of a weapon and exceeding the limits of self-defense, and you’d be imprisoned for a long time, eating up taxpayers’ money in jail. And if you don’t shoot, but only frighten them, you’ll be charged just for possessing the weapon, and you’ll still be imprisoned. So why on earth do you need such a “protector”—this very state?

Oh, you don’t want to carry a Glock, you want it so that people don’t attack you? Well, can you go to an insurance company and get insurance against robbery? No. Because companies would only start insuring against that if they had the right to maintain order and effectively oppose gangsters. And that is exactly what is forbidden—state monopoly. No matter where you turn, no matter how you try to secure your life—you run into this or that state prohibition.

And here, Mom, look at this fresh video, about what happens where the state leaves. Or, look, read a whole collection at inliberty about how people leave the state’s umbrella and feel perfectly fine.

In short

You’d better know what is currently in your mother’s head instead of ancap. Act subtly, feed her individual cases, both regarding state lawlessness and (this is much more important!) regarding the effective resolution of vital issues without the state or even despite it. And eventually, she won’t even notice when she starts discussing these things with her neighbors, because people are very fond of secret knowledge unavailable to ordinary mortals—how could she not share it with those ignorant folks?

mom will bring a breath of fresh air

What is the first question or objection most often voiced when you tell people about Ancap?

анонимный вопрос

People are held captive by Hobbes. The idea of a war of all against all, from which the benevolent state saves them, looms over their minds. It is even strange that it hasn’t started being taught in middle school yet. However, propaganda doesn’t necessarily need to delve into the depths of the history of philosophy; it shoves the wicked nineties in people’s faces and tries to convince them: here it is, your ancap—do you like it, do you want it again, you cannibals?

This is precisely what people ask first when they hear that there is not a single service officially provided by the state that could not be provided with higher quality and at a lower cost in a free competitive market. In other words, people say, you want to privatize everything, abolish all social protection, and leave only a wild market flooded with scammers and bandits, with no one left to fight them.

After such an approach, not everyone manages to explain that a new set of nineties is certainly not the goal, nor even an inevitable consequence of the transition to a market, and let’s look at Georgia, for example, which is much closer to current times. Many simply shut down, either because their personal experience of the nineties was too painful, or because they didn’t intend to have a discussion in the first place and simply consider this the most effective thesis against ancap.

Did you miss me?

As for the memes about roads and similar folklore—that is the interest of those who are younger, who didn’t experience the nineties at a conscious age, and for them, ancap is just some abstract internet joke

Why, under ancap, will courts follow libertarian principles of law?

анонимный вопрос

Answering this question is not just simple, but very simple. If people only apply to a court voluntarily, and the court has no means of coercing the execution of its decisions—which is precisely the kind of pathetic existence courts might lead under ancap—then courts have no options left but to follow libertarian principles of law.

Alice, based on the principle of self-ownership, voluntarily turned to a court to resolve a conflict with Bob. The court denies Alice self-ownership and issues a verdict stating that she has no right to own any property, so that Bob has the right of exclusive disposal over all disputed property, starting with Alice herself. Bob, in accordance with the court’s decision, appropriates all the property, including Alice, whom he keeps on a leash and beats for any disobedience.


Under ancap, there cannot be a sad girl on a leash!

What will stop Alice from sabotaging the court’s decision and actively resisting Bob, seeking any outside help? What will stop any outsider who, seeing a violation of the NAP, asks what is going on, is told it is the execution of a court decision, and responds that he doesn’t give a fuck?

Since the question itself postulates that it is ancap all around, it means the vast majority of relationships in this society are voluntary and market-based. This is precisely what everyone perceives as the norm, and any deviation from the norm must be hidden or very carefully justified.

One can ask “what would be the typical reaction under ancap to such-and-such a deviation from libertarian principles,” and in response, those typical reactions will be described, demonstrating the feedback mechanisms in an anarcho-capitalist society that make deviating from basic principles unprofitable. But it is pointless to frame the question as “how to fight mass deviations of courts from libertarian principles under ancap?” If they are mass deviations, it is no longer ancap, and one must look into why they are mass and which feedback mechanisms were lacking.

The question of whether a pure anarcho-capitalist society is stable has no theoretical solution today. Societies considered precursors to ancap in legal terms (Ireland, Iceland) were historically defeated by external forces, but this is not an argument for internal instability.

What are the drawbacks of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories?

анонимный вопрос

The main drawback of both libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories is that they do not exist.

There is an economic theory developed by the Austrian school of economics, which took on a relatively cohesive form thanks to Mises. This is praxeology, that is, the theory of human action; catallactics, that is, the theory of exchange; the theory of money, the theory of interventionism, the theory of the business cycle, and so on. The logic of the libertarian doctrine’s presentation is built upon economic theory, and it is used to verify various fantasies regarding the possible structure of society. Austrian economic theory does not provide quantitative forecasts and postulates the fundamental impossibility of doing so, which gives many followers of other schools reason to criticize it for uselessness in this regard.

There is a libertarian legal theory, also known as institutional or sociological. Russian libertarians generally tend to rely on it in their legal constructions, which is not least because it was developed by Vladimir Chetvernin, who is Russian and still alive. In the English-speaking world, natural law theories are more common.

There are various ethical libertarian teachings: some take natural rights as their basis, others derive ethics from the idea of a contract, and some rely on consequentialism—that is, evaluating actions by their consequences. In short, in the field of ethics, libertarians experience considerable fragmentation and instability.

As a result, libertarianism is a rather broad and pluralistic current of thought, which can be seen as both a plus (there is internal discussion, there is development, but there is also agreement on the fundamentals) and a minus (there is no unambiguous opinion on a number of specialized questions, some of which are quite serious—for example, whether an institution such as the state has a right to exist).


Cool little tree, and Chetvernin isn’t even here yet…

Update: after the post was already written, a video with Alexei Tereshchuk was released on SVTV, which deals precisely with similar issues.

And what does libertarianism say about alimony? After cohabitation, a child remains, the “husband” left and does not want to pay alimony?

Roman

Family is a communist cell in an ocean of the free market. Outside, there is private property and commodity-money relations, inside everything is shared, and there are gift relationships. But then one of the members of the communist cell decides to leave it and enter the market. What happens to the property? What happens to the accumulated obligations? Under communism, all of this continues to exist, but in a latent, implicit form.

One partner invests resources into another, expecting that over time there will be some return from the second person. Instead, after some time, the second person decides to leave. Or two people decide to have a child; this is a long-term creative project lasting a couple of decades, constantly consuming resources. And then one of the partners exits the project. Or, even worse, exits the family, but wishes to continue participating specifically in the project of raising the child.

The transition from communism to market relations is always privatization, the fixation of obligations, and a transition from implicit assumptions to clear contracts. The two most typical contracts in a divorce are a property division agreement and an agreement on regular payments to settle accumulated obligations. The latter are the very alimony payments you asked about.

As is easy to see, under a state, the evasion of alimony payments is widespread because those upon whom this obligation is placed consider it unfair. Indeed, it is hard to consider it fair when the lion’s share of the property during division goes to the party who invested fewer resources into its creation, and at the same time, the second party continues to bear financial obligations toward the first.

Now let’s move on to how it would be under ancap.

When I was talking about the future of the institution of marriage under ancap, I briefly touched upon the topic of children. Under ancap, a child to a much greater extent decides for themselves who to live with, who to be friends with, and from whom and what to learn. Thus, regular targeted payments for the maintenance of a child after divorce under ancap are far less likely than now, unless someone agrees to this voluntarily.

So, court-ordered alimony under ancap will be awarded primarily as payment for accumulated obligations, and the child will have nothing to do with it at all. For example, a wife paid for her husband’s landscape design courses, and after the divorce, he reimburses her for the cost of the courses.

The only example of court-ordered alimony related to a child that comes to mind is if a child is conceived at the husband’s initiative, which is documented, and at some late stage of pregnancy he changes his mind. Well, now he will have to pay a penalty “under the gestation contract.”

And what means of coercion for payments exist under ancap? Exactly the same as now: freezing of accounts and seizure of property.