Тег: Ancap

Will the current generation of Soviet—ugh, Russian—people live under ancap?

@WildTurkey

I would say that even the phrase “under ancap” is not entirely correct. Rather, one should say “by ancap,” just as people say, for example, “by conscience” or “by the rules,” although it sounds a bit clumsy.

The further we go, the more opportunities people have to live by ancap in a wide variety of things. Just ten years ago, people had practically no opportunity to conduct international trade without contacting the state. Now—no problem at all: there are bitcoins, there is the internet, trade away; the only issue is that problems may arise at customs. But once inexpensive long-range drones go into mass production, the issue of cross-border delivery of small parcels will cease to be acute.
And it will be this way everywhere there is solvent demand for bypassing state barriers. And the more positive examples of living by ancap there are, the greater the demand for such a life, and the less the demand for the state as such.

I have just drunk an elixir of optimism and predict that among the current generation of Russians around twenty years old, significantly more will live to see a life fully by ancap than will live to see retirement)))

This is a completely baseless prediction based on blind faith in the “market.” Mind you, economic theory does deny the possibility of precise quantitative predictions.

spherical ancap in a vacuum

Hi. And how, under ancap, can the harmony of the urban environment be ensured? What would stop one guy from building houses in the Baroque style, while another builds right next to him in the Constructivist style (let’s say)? Or is this not a problem worth thinking about at all?

anonymous question

Strictly speaking, even under a state, in most cases, nothing prevents two developers from building houses in completely different styles next to each other. There is a set of formal criteria regarding something like insolation, number of floors, and parking area; once those are met, it’s done. If the verdict of the chief city architect or some other expert bigwig is required, then corrupting them is simply a matter of time.

At the same time, there are many cases of self-organization in condominiums, where the purchase of land for development or a finished real estate object is accompanied by a set of restrictions common to the entire condominium—on fence height, number of floors, roof color, or even damn curtains on the windows. As long as such easements allow for increasing the value of the property in the condominium, the market supports them. As soon as a restriction leads to a decrease in the price of the properties, the market sets in motion the forces to abolish them, and suddenly the condominium board decides to lift the ban on building a second garage on a plot, or the requirement that roofs must necessarily be red. In the described mechanism of restricting property disposal rights, there is nothing that could not be implemented under ancap.

Here you go, an addition to baroque under state regulation

Hi, Ancap-chan! And once again the notorious question about roads: tell us, how will the movement of cars and pedestrians be regulated in the absence of single and centralized control?

anonymous question

There is already complete anarchy regarding pedestrians on the roads. In order to participate in road traffic, a pedestrian does not take any exams; they simply learn to walk—and then they walk. Infrastructure owners are interested in ensuring that a pedestrian arrives alive, solvent, and ready to spend their money at the place where they will spend it. Therefore, a pedestrian on a private street is fully looked after: they are physically separated from dangers, and efforts are made to move the points where they will spend money as close as possible to the places where, for some reason, there are many pedestrians.

But here is the trouble. Some pedestrians, wishing to make their movement even faster and more comfortable, get behind the wheel and begin to pose a danger to other pedestrians. How should the unfortunate owner of the street handle this situation if it is important to them that all pedestrians reach the spending point quickly and safely, even if some pedestrians have climbed into individual high-speed delivery vehicles? It becomes necessary to somehow reduce the risks of transport collisions by physically separating flows of different speeds and directions, and where this is too expensive, separating them at least logically—not in space, but in time, by organizing alternating movement in intersecting directions.

The same market logic applies here as in any other service sector: the more money there is in the market, the more profitable capital investments in improving service quality become. Therefore, in a remote village, we will see neither a sidewalk nor dividing barriers on the road, while in a metropolis, we see all of this and much more.

All these considerations are already in effect, despite the nominal existence of a “single centralized control,” and in its absence, they will work even better due to the absence of single centralized obstacles.

Sup, Ancap-chan. How will fundamental scientific research (mathematical and physical, for example) work in the absence of state funding? As history shows, such things only begin to bring benefit after decades and centuries. Will private foundations really invest in this?

anonymous question

How did fundamental scientific research work before the emergence of state academies of sciences? There were two main mechanisms.

First. A scientist conducted their research independently and at their own expense, satisfying their own private interest.

Second. A scientist found a patron, usually some aristocrat, and conducted research at the patron’s expense, while simultaneously fulfilling their minor whims and contributing to the increase of the patron’s prestige.

What are the contraindications to using these mechanisms even after the state withers away? Effectively, only one. It is claimed that quite many fundamental scientific projects are too expensive to implement for a single patron to be able to afford. Well, since the time of pre-state science, financial institutions have made good progress, so funds with billion-dollar budgets are by no means an exotic rarity now.

The question of motivation remains. What would prompt a potential sponsor of fundamental science to invest in a particular fund? Exactly the same considerations apply here as in patronage or philanthropy: the sponsor satisfies their sense of self-importance and gets good PR. Accordingly, for money to flow into fundamental science, it needs good marketing: stroking the egos of sponsors, vividly highlighting the results obtained and the breathtaking prospects. This is, of course, very soulless, but far fairer than the current model, where money is forcibly collected into a black box, and the report on results is given in the most tedious form possible, understandable only to narrow specialists, but not to those who pay.

Yes, it may happen that a stateless society will not fund certain fundamental mega-projects, and the Large Hadron Collider will never be built. Well, so be it; on the other hand, thousands of small projects will receive funding that would not have been allocated under a state because of it.

Bet you can’t build a Death Star on donations, huh, Elon Musk?

Of course, fundamental science will always compete for donations with art, sports, Mashinka’s nonsense, and Ancap-chan (donate here: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8) – but this is a normal market process. I, too, would like to work on making donating to the channel prestigious.

Why are there so many anime fans among your supporters?

anonymous question

To be honest, I don’t fully understand it myself.

It’s just that anime is a genre as far removed as possible from any kind of traditional values. Apparently, free people are drawn to those directions in art that they associate with freedom. Thirty years ago, they were more drawn to Hollywood, but now, from all its wealth of ideas, only the idea of diversity stands out, and as a result, the fashion for it is fading.

And then, of course, there is the general infantilization of humanity, linked to the fact that people have begun to live longer, richer, and more carefree lives, and therefore can afford not to fully leave childhood until the onset of senile dementia. It’s all better than turning into gloomy little old men at the age of five.

Bitcoin-chan

Right now I have pure, unadulterated childhood joy: in the third month of the channel’s existence, the first donation has finally arrived. Here it is, look how lovely!

A post that lifts the veil and finally confuses everything

I want to introduce you to a true LPR-chan, known to many as @cannibalica

LPR-chan

Now, please send all nudes and questions about the libertarian party to her.

As for me, I will be happy to continue answering your questions on ancap, economic theory, libertarian law, ethics, and similar matters.

Ancap-chan

Thank you for staying on the channel! Love you all!

Let’s consider a situation: someone builds a pyrotechnics factory in the city center, and everyone’s fire insurance premiums go up. But the factory owner has not violated the NAP, so he owes nothing to anyone (and no one can forbid him from building this factory). Do libertarians not consider this a problem?

anonymous question

To answer this question more fully, Alexei Tereshchuk aka @kamendant, leader of the Austrian School of Economics public page on VKontakte and the chat on the same topic in Telegram, was brought in as an expert. Below is a mix of his explanations and my own thoughts.

What is the difference between the case of a factory that pollutes the surroundings and a factory that raises the cost of property insurance for its neighbors?

In the first case, the factory causes direct damage to those around it, and this damage can theoretically be subject to compensation, even if the methods of calculating the damage are quite unreliable — after all, to set the price for a bunch of radishes for an old woman at the market, it is also not necessary to calculate its cost price in detail.

In the second case, it is only a matter of increased risks, and the very attempt to insure these risks leads to additional costs. Such indirect damage is not related to a violation of the non-aggression principle and therefore is not subject to compensation. Indeed, we are surrounded by many factors that increase our risks, but which we are forced to put up with if we want to maintain our current lifestyle.

For example, in the city, we have a higher chance of getting into a car accident than in the village; this increases the risk and, accordingly, the price of insurance for this event — but it is not a reason to make property claims against all drivers in the city — only against the specific one who caused the accident in which the victim was involved.

So, libertarians do not consider it a problem that it is impossible to demand money from a pyrotechnics factory located in the city center simply for the fact of its presence in the center.

It is another matter that the insurance cost for the factory itself will be much higher if it is built in the center than if it is on the outskirts — because the risk of claims from neighbors affected by an accident will be insured, which means it is more profitable for the factory owner not to have neighbors in the danger zone.

explosion at a pyrotechnics factory – fun and scary

Libertarianism assumes only private companies (anarcho-cap.). But what about state hospitals? Does it mean a sick person will not be able to receive free help? There are quite many sick people, and not everyone has money. Charity is unlikely to help here.

anonymous question

Let’s keep it simple. Let’s open the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation for 2017 and look at health care spending. 2.8 trillion rubles. That is 20 thousand rubles per person per year, less than 1.7 thousand per month, and this amount includes all corruption, all kickbacks, embezzlement, and simply inefficient spending. Absolutely pittance, less than the average utility bill.

In a situation where there are no taxes or regulations, by very conservative estimates, wages would increase, say, by only 50%. Suppose that all those who were previously treated under a compulsory health insurance policy purchase voluntary insurance policies exactly in the amount of former government health expenditures, spending approximately 1,700 rubles per person per month, and all those who previously paid out of pocket maintain their habits. The median salary in Russia today, according to a very sloppily conducted survey on Navalny’s blog, is about 15,000 rubles.

What is the result? The median salary under ancap increases by 50% and becomes 22,500 rubles. Let’s say the median worker supports one dependent. He pays 3,400 rubles for two policies, and he has 19,100 rubles left. That is, he is still wealthier than he was before ancap, while also having good paid medicine.

Of course, there are still cases where a poor family faces an expensive-to-treat disease not covered by a standard policy. What does a poor family do now? They go to charitable foundations, and those foundations spam social networks with posts saying “Mashenka has a fucking disaster of a disease, we urgently need a trillion rubles.” Well, that is exactly what they will do under ancap, only the probability of receiving money to treat the disaster will increase by 50%, proportional to the increase in average income (assuming that people continue to donate to charity approximately the same percentage of their income as they do now).

Summary. Fully privatized and deregulated healthcare in the absence of taxes is capable of providing every Russian with medical service better than what they have now, without requiring amounts that would be critical for them.

treat the disaster!

If a libertarian penitentiary system is aimed at restitution, then how will it work in the case of a murderer?

anonymous question

The system will work exactly as it does with a robber. Compensation for damages resulting from a murder will be demanded by those who suffered that damage. This is precisely why insurance companies play such an important role in theoretical developments regarding ancap: they suffer direct financial loss from the death of the insured person, and therefore, a developed insurance market will obviously lead to a reduction in the murder rate.

If one attempts to limit feedback to such archaic mechanisms as blood feuds, this also works, of course, but it looks rather primitive in modern society; more effective market mechanisms have been developed in our time.

And what about global warming?

I think it would be foolish to deny this phenomenon. The consequences of warming include the melting of glaciers and the flooding of lands, and consequently, the violation of property rights. Who should bear responsibility for this? And how can the market be used to prevent it?

anonymous question

For the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants, global warming is, of course, wonderful. History clearly shows that during periods of climatic optima (which is why they are called optima), it was far more comfortable for people to live than during periods of cooling: at the very least, they didn’t starve to death as actively.
However, for the inhabitants of the atolls of some Kiribati, warming provides no benefit, as it is already warm at the equator; instead, the rise in ocean levels is a very real problem.

So yes, indeed, some people benefit from certain climatic changes and others from different ones, and if climate change is anthropogenic, then those for whom this externality is negative have grounds to file a claim for damages against those involved in anthropogenic climate change.
Let’s imagine how this could be implemented under ancap, that is, in a free market system. A native of Kiribati goes on the internet, first looks for theoretical information about the industries contributing most to global warming, then finds specific companies operating in those industries, and then starts flooding them with lawsuits? It seems unrealistic. Too many competencies are required from the victim; it is too difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for damages. When the damage is finally calculated, it may easily turn out that the calculation cost more than the amount of compensation. What is left?

Only private charity remains. Eco-activists create hype by filming videos about unfortunate natives disappearing underwater. Companies and individual media personalities capitalize on the hype by creating a fund to help those affected by flooding. With the fund’s money, individual natives who wish to do so are solemnly helped, in front of cameras, to move somewhere to Hawaii, the Philippines, or the Solomon Islands, or are simply given money, with which they acquire a yacht and then decide for themselves which harbor to dock in. Voilà, everyone is happy, everyone profits, the market has solved it!

Kiribati

Well, you understand that the mention of private charity wasn’t just for nothing, right? How about chipping in for a yacht? 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8