Тег: Ancap

How would emergency medical care be provided under ancap? After all, checking for the presence of insurance takes some time, and if a person is unconscious and in critical condition, that time is not available. On the other hand, he would not be obliged to pay for the care, since he did not agree to it.

anonymous question

A person who has not left resource-backed instructions on how to act in the event of their sudden incapacity risks that the actions they would have wanted will not be taken, even if the technical possibility to do so exists.

At the same time, in addition to the service delivery model based on the “use the service, then pay the bill” principle, humanity actively practices another approach: “provide the service, then receive gratitude.” I answer your questions, you send me donations. If you stop doing this, I will not stop answering questions. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that emergency aid will not be paid for in one way or another—if not by the rescued person themselves, then at least by grateful city residents, for whom it is always much more pleasant and easier to reward moral acts than to punish immoral ones.

Yes, it may turn out that the person in need of help has a bad reputation, or that providing help is too costly, or a thousand and one other circumstances that ultimately leave them without that very help. But even then, this story will not be in vain: people will feel awkward that such things happen on their territory, which is a serious incentive to prevent a recurrence and to drop a few satoshis into the city emergency fund.

After all, when you let an ambulance pass on the road, you are also donating—even if it’s just a small amount of your convenience, but you do it voluntarily and willingly, right?

What will happen to the institution of marriage under ancap?

anonymous question

I can answer in one word: deregulation. But that is obvious to everyone, because deregulation awaits all institutions under ancap, so let’s fantasize about where it will lead and what forms the institution of marriage might take.

What functions of marriage do we have today?

  1. Marriage is a subscription to sex. Since humans are generally inclined to save effort, this function of marriage will be preserved under ancap, regardless of how much ideological polyamorists dream otherwise. But a subscription, of course, will not imply exclusivity by default, just as it already does not. The word “infidelity” will finally become a thing of the past, alongside other archaic terms like “sacrilege” or “vendetta”.
  2. Marriage is a form of organizing a household. Here, as people become wealthier, this function will increasingly wither away. Roughly speaking, the norm will be an autonomous household, with the possibility of visiting a partner from time to time or organizing a joint tour. Housekeeping itself will become even more automated, and whatever automation does not handle will be perfectly executed by specialized companies, like modern cleaning services.
  3. Marriage is a form of friendship. The continuing improvement of communication channels will make framing friendship as marriage less and less relevant. People easily meet and grow close without such a status, regardless of gender, age, and increasingly even social standing. Ancap will only exacerbate this trend.
  4. Marriage is a cooperative for raising children. To the same extent that the model of marriage as a form of friendship blurs under ancap, the model of marriage as an institution for upbringing will also blur. A child will have a much greater degree of freedom, including in the choice of friends, guardians, and teachers.
  5. Marriage is a form of legal entity. In the absence of a state that provides the right of legal representation without a power of attorney only to family members, this model will also blur. People will formalize situational relationships of mutual trust using simple and cheap mechanisms, for example, based on blockchain. In the absence of such formalization, a counterparty will be forced to act regarding someone’s acquaintances at their own risk. However, the aforementioned development of communication will allow one to easily obtain all necessary confirmations if necessary.

So. It is quite likely that the form of marriage we know today as traditional will be preserved under ancap as a kind of archaism, however, the role of the institution will be noticeably reduced and replaced by clearer and more specific contractual relations between people.

institutions decay, people remain

Hey, Ancap-chan. Can you explain step-by-step and in detail how the judicial system will work in the wonderful Ancapistan? And how will private prisons make a profit?

anonymous question

In addition to this post, I also recommend reading all posts tagged “court,” at least this one and this one.

To start, let me roll out a bunch of definitions related to your question. Often, providing clear definitions is enough, and the answer to the question becomes completely obvious.

  • Property  – the relationship of an object to a subject, within which the subject disposes of the object at their discretion, and other subjects refrain from similar actions without the owner’s sanction.
  • Ancap – a system of relations between people based on the principle of self-ownership, that is, ownership of oneself. In common parlance, we will also call an “ancap” a person who is ready to adhere to this system of relations.
  • Law – a complex of practices for resolving conflicts between people.
  • Court – a legal institution within which a conflict between parties is resolved by a third party. Under ancap, a court can resolve conflicts only within the scope of the authority delegated to it by the parties to the conflict.
  • Prison – a legal institution within which the party that caused damage is isolated from the party that suffered damage. Under ancap, isolation can occur only with the sanction of the isolated party and only on terms agreed upon with them.

Now let’s provide a few examples of how law works in Ancapistan.

  1. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. They have stated their claims to each other, and after discussion, they agreed on who gets the disputed object, and who, for example, in exchange for waiving their claims, receives an agreed-upon compensation. The conflict is resolved.
  2. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. They have stated their claims to each other but have not reached an agreement. Then they agree with a third party in one way or another and delegate to them the authority to resolve the conflict. The court examines the situation, issues a decision, and the parties to the conflict execute the decision. The conflict is resolved.
  3. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. In an attempt to exercise their property rights over the disputed object, the parties begin to cause each other some damage. Not wanting the conflict to escalate, one of the parties finds a shelter where they are out of reach of the second party, and after this, the parties begin to negotiate about a court. The court examines the situation, issues a decision, and the parties to the conflict execute the decision. The conflict is resolved.

The shelter appearing in the third example is, in essence, a prison. For the service of providing security during the period of imprisonment, the prison owner may charge a fee from the client, that is, from the person who wishes to obtain shelter.

I do not think that under ancap, the service of imprisonment will be in such high demand that it would be profitable to build special, well-protected structures to provide it. Most likely, the service of providing shelter will be provided decentrally and will be more declarative in nature.

A guy is running down the street, all disheveled and bruised, and another guy is behind him, very agitated and wanting to bruise the first one even more. The first guy rushes to me and asks for help. I shield him from the second one and suggest that he move toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. I have isolated one participant of the conflict from the other, and, in essence, this is no different from putting him in a pretrial detention center. The only thing that prevents the strong side in this conflict from continuing the crackdown on the weak side is the unwillingness to enter into a conflict with me as well. In the vast majority of situations, this is quite enough.

Will I take money for the service provided? I don’t know, it depends on the circumstances, depending on how much it distracts me from my own affairs.

In describing this example, I proceeded from the implicit assumption that ancap developed in a peaceful society through the gradual withering away of the state, which is why the described conflict, within which the need for shelter arose, looks quite “vegetarian.” Of course, if some Venezuela arrives at ancap through the complete and rapid bankruptcy of the state, then conflicts between people in the first stage will be significantly more numerous, and there may indeed arise a sufficiently stable, solvent demand for solid fortified shelters where the client would be provided with armed security services. But the probability of such a scenario seems very small to me.

Explain the difference between common law and civil law jurisdictions?

anonymous question

This is roughly like asking what the difference is between equality and a jury trial. The first is a principle. The second is an institution. Between them is a cause-and-effect relationship.

NAP is the non-aggression principle, stating that no one has the right to use aggressive violence with impunity. Contractual jurisdictions are an institution for conflict resolution based on adherence to the NAP.

The point of contractual jurisdictions is that one subject enters into an agreement with another subject stating that they are subject to their jurisdiction. The agreement also specifies what limitations this jurisdiction has.
The existence of a contract between the court and the subject is a mandatory condition that ensures compliance with the NAP, since under the contract, the subject agrees to execute the court’s decision or agrees that they will be forced to execute it. Without such prior consent, an attempt to force a convicted person to execute a court decision becomes a violation of the non-aggression principle.

The most elementary example of a contractual jurisdiction is an arbitration court. Two parties to a conflict enter into a contract with a court to resolve one specific conflict, pledging to execute the court’s decision regardless of what it may be. An arbitration court provides the highest possible degree of fairness in conflict resolution, but is poorly suited for cases of extreme bitterness between parties, as well as situations where the parties are barely acquainted and simply cannot find a single person whom both parties trust.

In cases where a pure arbitration court is difficult, intermediaries begin to step in. I entrust the settlement of my conflict to someone I have chosen as my representative, and after some effort, they provide me with a result: here the opponent is ready to make such-and-such a concession, here it makes sense for me to make a concession, I can also count on such-and-such compensation, but I must pay such-and-such for the mediation. I agree to this, and a settlement occurs. Or I disagree and negotiations continue.

The more stable a society is, the more likely it is that such mediation contracts will become more long-term and the results of their activity more predictable. People generally love to generalize and average things out to save effort and not worry about minor details.
Thus arises what is usually meant by the words “contractual jurisdictions,” although this is only a specific case of them: a system in which practically everyone is bound by a permanent contract with one jurisdiction or another, and it is that jurisdiction that handles all their conflicts, whether they bring claims against others or others bring claims against them. A contractual jurisdiction can be freely changed, but this will likely happen no more often than people change mobile operators today.

To a certain approximation, such a judicial system existed in Iceland during the Age of Sagas, that is, in the period of the absence of a state, when jurisdiction, along with priestly functions, was carried out by the so-called godi, and a landowner could enter one godord or another or move to a different one.

For the geeks, I can even provide a link with a description of this legal system.

Modern Icelandic godi are more like role-playing games, but imitation institutions sometimes wake up

How will treatment protocols be developed under ancap? Today, the WHO does this, and then the state implements these recommendations. But without a state?

Semyon Podporin

Even today, there is a more or less market-based competition between various treatment methodologies in the world. There is the WHO, with its ICD and list of essential medicines. There are numerous schools of traditional medicine that find their followers, often even on an international level. There is homeopathy and all sorts of other extrasensory practices. There are fasting and prayers. There are several families of therapeutic gymnastics.

Thus, even when competing with international bureaucracy, the medical market is quite flexible and provides services for every taste and budget. There are no grounds for it to be any different under ancap. Yes, it will be easier to introduce various “placebo-drugs” to the market. On the other hand, there will be no imposition of such drugs at the state level, as was the case with something like Arbidol.

Yes, humanity will not have a single list of diseases and drugs, but developing new medications will definitely become easier. Yes, there will be more various placebos on the market, but funding for the Cochrane Collaboration will likely grow, as will its authority.
Many also fear the curtailment of research into new drugs due to the demise of patent law, but that is a completely different question, which, moreover, I have already partially answered.

fully decentralized self-governing self-funding association – the market solves the problem of placebo-drugs

Roads

Well, just as I relaxed and decided that there wouldn’t be a question again today, a question was asked after all. But it’s too late—I’ve already relaxed. So I’ll answer a bit later, but for now, I’ll share a silly joke I overheard today:

— Who built this road?
— Oh, it’s a mystery shrouded in an asphalt-cap!

On participation in elections

Last Sunday was marked not only by nationwide protests, but also, imagine that, by elections. I would like to talk a bit about why ancaps should pay any attention to elections at all.

Of course, the idea that someone who has defeated their opponents as a result of a complex, multi-stage electoral procedure now has the power to dispose of all the inhabitants of the mandated territory within the powers specified by the office, plus bonuses for audacity, and that this is as indisputable as the requirements of a voluntarily signed contract—does not withstand criticism. Volumes have been written about this; let us not dwell on this banality.

But do you really think that under ancap there is no place for the very phenomenon of procedural legitimation when determining who will exercise leadership?

Democracy is a set of tools for making compromise decisions in collectives. Under ancap, only a fundamental requirement is added: that decisions concern only issues of the management of collective property, but not the private property of the collective’s members. Given this limitation, democratic procedures are quite acceptable, and they indeed contribute to the minimization of conflicts.

Therefore, participation in the state-organized master class on conducting electoral procedures is quite useful. For now, for educational purposes, it does not matter exactly how hypothetical candidates Ivanov and Petrov got onto the ballot, how Sidorov was barred from the elections, or how Popov was removed on the last day. What matters is that the precinct commission properly crossed candidate Popov off the ballot, that every ballot bore a stamp and the signatures of two precinct commission members, that no campaigning was conducted near the precinct, that no pressure was put on the voter at the precinct, that the secrecy of the vote was maintained, that the counting of votes was carried out strictly according to procedure, that the control totals matched, and that the copies of the protocols issued to observers matched the official results for the precinct—all this boring “kitchen” work, where every single point matters.

Can you solve such simple educational problems? Then it will be easier to handle the organization of voting at a shareholders’ meeting, or a homeowners’ association, or the programming of consensus algorithms when creating a new cryptocurrency. Or you can try to make the problems more complex—and strive for the purity of electoral procedures not only on election day, but throughout the entire election campaign. And then, perhaps, it will lead to the practical implementation of a democratic model within the state—meaning not only an electoral model, but the entire system of checks and balances that ensures the adoption and implementation of compromise decisions in large collectives while minimizing violent coercion.

So do not neglect elections, even if there is no practical benefit from the results of the voting at the moment. This is the development of skills as useful as the ability to handle a weapon. Just come to the precincts to, so to speak, practice.

a mass-market scale model of democracy, nothing sacred

And how will it be with selling heroin to children under ancap? It won’t be possible to ban it. As I understand it, it’s the reputation institute. An asshole sells heroin to children, fewer and fewer people will turn to him, and in the end, he will have to change his trading policy or close down. Do I understand correctly?

anonymous question

It’s even more interesting. Not only will it be impossible to ban it, but the institution of reputation will also fail to work.

Judge for yourself: you have two businesses, both bring in money, but those who find out that you have one business refuse to do business with you in your second business for some of their own ethical reasons. For example, you have a vegan restaurant and a steakhouse, and the vegans have stopped liking you, accusing you of hypocrisy. The meat-eaters generally don’t care what you sell to the vegans. What do you do? You simply hide the existence of the steakhouse and remain a respectable owner of a vegan restaurant in the eyes of society. And the steakhouse is owned by a “front man.”

The exact same thing happens with selling drugs to children and adults. If one business interferes with another, it is simply separated so that you are not associated with it. Moreover, if it turns out that parents forbid children from buying your heroin with their pocket money, you can always switch to the “dead drop” scheme, which works perfectly today under conditions of a total government ban on the circulation of psychoactive substances.

In other words: the stick method does not work, no matter how you try to optimize it.

We cannot predict in detail what the structure of supply and demand will be in a free market, but if a certain product, despite all its positive qualities, has a lot of various unpleasant side effects, then a demand arises for the same thing, but without the side effects. Once the desired substance can be obtained at a comparable price, the old one will have to leave the market. I think this is precisely the fate that awaits heroin in the end, and after that, it will no longer matter whether what replaces it is sold to children or adults — it will be something as socially acceptable as, for example, ice cream.

But for market forces to work successfully in the desired direction, they must not be hindered by various absurd bans. Because right now, in the field of psychoactive substances, not only distribution but also research is illegal.

And finally, I would like to note that with full deregulation of the industry, the problem of the spread of harmful habits among vulnerable categories of the population will be completely insignificant, even without any significant innovations. I suggest looking at Portugal’s experience with the decriminalization of drugs. It had many positive consequences, including a sharp decline in adolescent drug addiction that continues to this day. So, I appreciate your concern for children, but really, there would be nothing to worry about in this case.

decriminalization of ice cream

How could a free market without state regulation of security issues have prevented 9/11?

anonymous question

I currently remind me a bit of Yulia Latynina, because I want to respond in the spirit of “you know, it’s like in that joke: first of all, there were no bullets…”.

Terrorist attacks such as 9/11, Beslan, Nord-Ost, the Boston Marathon, and so on, are directed against state policy. No state – no policy – no political terrorist attacks. Voila, the free market prevented them. Now let’s dig a little deeper.
Who ensures the safety of people in a free market? The people themselves. For the most part – directly. But the least troublesome and most obvious way, given that the market always tends to settle things through the division of labor, is to use market offers.

What does the market offer in terms of security? First, one can purchase a security service, for example, by installing an alarm system in the house and signing a contract with a security firm. Second, one can buy an insurance policy and simply know that, should something happen to you, either you or a designated circle of heirs will receive an insurance payout, so now it is the insurance company’s headache to figure out how to ensure people’s safety regarding insurance events.

Aha. So, if a terrorist attack occurs, the insurance company will suffer huge losses. There you have your potential beneficiary of terrorist attacks – competing insurance companies. The plan of action: blow up a plane, the company that insured the flight goes bankrupt, and we enter the vacated flight insurance market. There is, however, a problem: the plane is insured by one company, but each passenger is insured by any other; after all, they choose whose policy to take when insuring themselves against an accident or attack during a flight. Thus, decentralization makes commercial terrorist attacks aimed at seizing the insurance market ineffective. This applies not only to flights, but to all spheres of life in general.

But what about ideological terrorist attacks? For example, conservative fanatics might carry out mass shootings in gay clubs, exactly as they do now. To a certain extent, decentralization rules here too: when even the last gay man has a gun, a mass shooting becomes a problem. But a gun doesn’t save you from an explosion.
How does the free market prevent the spread of destructive ideologies? In the only way available to it: by making people richer and happier. This works slowly and does not provide a hundred percent effect, but it completely outperforms any state alternatives.

The only thing the market hasn’t learned to prevent yet is the appearance of insane maniacs. Economic incentives work poorly on someone who has lost their mind, just as they do on meteorites and tsunamis.

But once the market settles the raiders and Islamists, it will be the turn of the maniacs and natural disasters. Just laissez faire, laissez passer.

September 9 Protest

You have run out of questions for now, so I will just talk about yesterday’s protests.

It is clear that pensions, in particular, concern very few people. Those who are about to retire suffer from the increase in the retirement age to a minimal extent, because the age is increasing gradually. And for those who won’t retire for a long time, it is such a distant future that in our fast-paced and unstable world, it is completely pointless to make plans for such a period.

But it is the youth who are protesting. What is their motive?

They are simply tired of this state, and here it has set itself up perfectly. You can go out to protest against the government as such, but in the eyes of parents and grandmothers, have an ironclad justification: we were robbed, you were robbed, the state has gone crazy, it needs to be reined in, otherwise it won’t stop.

Right now is such a wonderful period when there is absolutely no point in promoting any legal constructive politicians at the federal level. Duma elections in 2021. Presidential elections in 2024. So, it will be a very long time before people are receptive to the thesis that “the opposition only brings negativity, why not participate in elections with a constructive agenda,” and for now, questions about what the hell is going on with the government’s agenda will land much better. Now is the time to obstruct it, force it to make mistakes, shake its authority, and make any attempts to negotiate with it about anything other than surrender look ridiculous. Time for the thesis “you present us with a fait accompli, and we present you with a fait accompli.” A time when the state can not only be called a bandit, but one can behave toward it exactly as such: place it outside the law and organize a defense. A time when, in response to the words “I am against the state,” people stop pointing to their temples and start wondering what can be done.

From the thesis “the state cannot be trusted with our pension savings,” it is not far to the thesis “the state cannot be trusted with anything at all.” And that means people are ripening for ancap.