Тег: Ancap

How to conduct an investigation under ancap?

Unlike a modern state, in a libertarian society, it is impermissible to detain suspects, intrude into private life through surveillance, compel testimony through the threat of violence, or forbid perjury. How then is the non-aggression principle to be applied without all these extremely useful tools necessary for an investigation? After all, without them, it is simply impossible to catch anyone, which means that instead of non-aggression, we will face impunity for a violent criminal who was not killed in self-defense.

anonymous question

Not everything is so bleak)

Surveillance

Surveillance and uncovering secrets of private life do not violate the non-aggression principle at all, so under ancap conditions, this direction will face even fewer obstacles than under a state. We should all mentally prepare to live in a condition of a 24/7 stream of everyone and everything in the public domain. It is already almost like this now, and the trend will only develop.

Compelling testimony

As usual, the state’s stick will be replaced by the ancap carrot. Yes, a person has the right not to share information with anyone, but if they are materially interested, the probability of evidence appearing increases. Even now, it is not perceived as something extraordinary when someone interested in an investigation announces a reward for testimony. As for compelling testimony against oneself, this is forbidden even under a state, although we all know how tenderly state representatives treat such prohibitions.

Detention of suspects

The more developed surveillance technologies are, the less need there is to detain a suspect. Simply put, retrospective research through open sources—what the suspect was doing at the moment in question—will finally replace interrogations and confrontations.

Actually, it is strange that this question concerns you so much: we are currently literally watching in real-time the investigation of numerous crimes committed by Russian officials, military personnel, and intelligence officers through open sources. In effect, almost everything here is as it is under ancap: you cannot detain, you cannot compel testimony, but it is quite realistic to study the matter. As for how the transition from investigation to court, or directly to sanctions, occurs under ancap, I have already written multiple times.

But what about the lamp in the face, the handcuffs, the good cop and bad cop? A whole layer of culture will perish!

What are the main goals that ancap sets for foreign policy? And what will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism?

anonymous question

One could answer briefly by stating that within the framework of ancap, there is no foreign policy, since this term refers to interstate relations, and there are no states under ancap. But let’s expand the answer a bit: of course, I’m not paid by the character, but I simply don’t want to release entirely meager texts in separate posts.

What could be likened to foreign policy for ancap? I suppose, relations with entities that are territorially distant, different in culture, type of economic activity, everyday habits, and perhaps even not entirely ancaps. And what are the main goals ancap sets in such a “foreign policy”? Naturally, to ensure freedom of trade with them.

If I find out that somewhere in the depths of the southeast there is the unforgettable smelly durian fruit, I want to be able to buy it. If not in a supermarket in the next block, then at least to visit the durian myself. The people who grow this curious fruit are needed so that I can try it, and as for what the structure of the commodity-money transactions that reunite me with the durian will be—the market knows best.

What will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism? The same freedom of trade. The famous international festival KaZantip will return there. Girls in bright swimsuits will flock to the Crimean sea, slender speleologists will flock to Crimean caves, tasters saturated with Georgia will flock to Crimean wine cellars, and the long-awaited Dnipro water will return to Crimean fields at market rates.

Beautiful! How could one not visit such a place?

After a person’s death, whose property does their corpse become?

anonymous question

Thank you for the interesting question. Indeed, a corpse is a rather peculiar object of property.

At first glance, everything is simple. A person has property rights to their own body; therefore, it is up to them to specify into whose ownership their corpse will pass, or to give paid instructions as to who should perform which specific manipulations with the corpse. If a contract for these manipulations is concluded, the contractors are obliged to perform them. If no instructions regarding the ownership of the corpse have been given, the corpse may be claimed by the first person to express such a desire.

However, in practice, procedural difficulties arise. I will simply list a few of them to illustrate why the theoretical model might fail.

First, a corpse may appear in a closed room belonging to the former owner of the corpse. A person fell asleep in their home and did not wake up. In order to understand that the owner of the house has died, one must enter the house, but as long as there is no certainty that the owner of the house has changed due to the death of the previous owner, entering the house will be considered a violation of the owner’s property rights. The more property rights are respected, the lower the probability of discovering the corpse. In an ideal situation, where respect for property rights is infinitely great, the fact of death will never be established, and the corpse will never pass into anyone’s ownership, continuing to be erroneously recognized as the property of the deceased.

Second, claiming an ownerless corpse may be fraught with claims from those who might assume the claimer’s involvement in the fact of death itself. For example, if someone is sitting peacefully on a riverbank and suddenly sees the corpse of their enemy floating by, it may be in their interest not to claim the corpse, but to let it float peacefully away, which, of course, would spoil their pleasure.

Third, even if the person who found the corpse is obviously uninvolved in its appearance, difficulties still arise in determining the current status of the object. The corpse may already be the property of an heir, since the deceased gave a corresponding instruction in advance. This means that before claiming the corpse, a subject who respects property rights will be forced to take steps to determine the identity of the deceased and their instructions in case of death.

Also, upon discovery of a corpse, it is quite reasonable to assume that the deceased’s friends have already begun searching for them, and if the cause of death was violence, they may be interested in finding the culprit; even if they have no rights to the corpse, they may approach the finder with a request to provide the corpse for an autopsy and similar manipulations.

In short, it is not hard to guess that all these subtleties make a corpse as a commodity quite illiquid and needed by few. Therefore, the question of “who owns the corpse” will more likely arise in the context of reflections on “how to get rid of a found corpse,” rather than “how best to use it for household purposes.” Thus, even in a situation where it is god knows whose corpse it is and it’s unclear if anyone will look for it, the decision to bury it and remember the burial site will be entirely justified and, most likely, less risky than feeding it to pigs. Or one could simply hand it over to a morgue, if we are talking about a civilized area (as it is easy to see from the reasoning provided, the demand for morgues under ancap will not disappear).

Well

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