Тег: Ancap

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 

There is a rule in libertarianism that if there is no victim, there is no court. It turns out that it would be profitable for a bandit to destroy the entire family so that no victims remain. Something about this is wrong…

anonymous question

So, I live in my own house, and one of my neighbors killed another neighbor and his entire family. What happens to the price of my house because a dangerous psycho lives next door? It drops rapidly. Who am I after that? A victim.

In a situation where law is decentralized, your moral judgment can always become the basis for your actions. There is no one to forbid you from doing something, but the responsibility will be entirely yours.

If I have enough evidence of how my neighbor killed an entire family, and I kill him afterwards, then to whoever accuses me of this murder, I will show this evidence and explain that I had sufficient grounds to fear for my own life, as the deceased was far too unpredictable. And I’ll bring up the argument about the house price, just as a cherry on top.

And then we’ll see if I can make peace with the relatives and acquaintances of the deceased.

In the modern world, which is largely individualistic, moral evaluations of actions usually play a more significant role than kinship ties—after all, we no longer live in a clan society where the kin effectively acted as a single legal entity.

reconciliation of blood feud parties

You wrote that in the event that a child is subjected to domestic violence, a third party can only explain the child’s rights to them. But isn’t such treatment of children aggression? Why, in this case, are the actions of the parent/guardian not a violation of the NAP?

anonymous question

I wrote that an outsider can use the rich arsenal of peaceful resolution techniques with impunity, but applying violence or the threat of violence is at their own risk. If you see a fight, it would be appropriate to inquire whether it is a private fight before intervening. Similarly, upon seeing violence against a child, it is appropriate to ask the child if they need help. If there is no opportunity or desire to clarify this important point, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Yes, the guardian is using violence against the child and thereby violating the principle of non-aggression toward them. However, by manifesting aggression against the child’s guardian without the child’s sanction, you also violate the principle of non-aggression toward the child. And it is the child who will be the first one asked after this incident who exactly caused them harm. And you could very well turn out to be the one who caused that harm.

Your evidence regarding the extent of the violence against the child must be damn convincing for an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction both you and the child’s guardian recognize, to rule that guardianship rights should indeed transfer from the current guardian to another party wishing to obtain them, in a situation where the child does not demonstrate a desire to change guardians.

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

Let’s say my property (whether it be a cow, or perhaps just an ordinary ball) ends up on my neighbor’s plot, but we have concluded no agreements for such cases. Can the neighbor in such a case take my ball, kill my cow?

anonymous question

To begin with, the neighbor must be prepared to prove that it was not he who stole the ball or the cow, but that it landed on his land on its own. Then, he must be prepared to prove that the landing of a foreign object on his property caused him damage. And finally, he must be prepared to prove that he did not know and had no simple ways of finding out who owned the object, and therefore considered the appropriation of the object as the most logical way to compensate for the damage, rather than approaching the owner of the object with a demand for compensation.

The title of ownership to an object does not transfer from one subject to another simply because the object changed location. But, of course, in a situation where it is unknown whose cow grazed on someone else’s plot for two years, managed to calve, and then the owner of the cow appears, the owner of the plot would probably be able to justify his rights to the calf. Similarly, if the owner of a ball comes to claim it after a week, the owner of the ball is unlikely to be entitled to demand rental payment for the fact that the ball was used to play football.

Trespassers will be shot

I am a girl, and I’ve fallen in love with you, LPR-chan; how will protection against homophobia work under ancap?

anonymous question

That’s so sweet! ❤️

Protection from homophobia isn’t necessary. Anyone has the right to be afraid of us, since we’re so scary. Protection is needed from violence. When we choose an insurance plan, we’ll need to mention that we’re in a same-sex union; perhaps the insurance will be a bit more expensive. But if we wear a badge with the insurance company’s logo and a built-in tracker, there should be a discount. If we get weapons, the discount will increase.

Of course, the rate will become absolutely ridiculous if we choose the right neighborhood to live in, but those are capital investments, and we need to look closer—such paranoia might not pay off. On the other hand, the atmosphere there is friendlier, which is even more important than saving on premiums. Regular medical check-ups, first aid courses, and other ways to save on the insurance price—well, if we aren’t too lazy; most likely, we’ll manage without them.

And once we’re strolling together, having taken all these measures—then why should we, as ancaps, care? Let the homophobes be afraid; it’s very funny 👩‍❤️‍👩

Ancap insurance is the best remedy for fear! Of course, for this, you need ancap money. Send money here: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

On what principle will no-man’s land be privatized? Will there be democratic voting among the former population of this state to allocate land by majority vote, or will the principle of “whoever cultivated it first, the land is theirs” actually be applied?

anonymous question

I have already been asked on what principle nuclear bombs will be privatized, but with this low-liquidity commodity, things are indeed different, because off the top of my head, I can think of only two useful applications for a nuclear bomb specifically as a bomb, and both boil down to burying it deep in the ground in the right place—and blowing it up. First, this would make it possible to register seismic vibrations at different points on the planet and use them to refine information about its structure. Second, this allows for the release of seismic tension in seismically hazardous areas, so that instead of rare large earthquakes, there will be a series of frequent small ones.

But anyway, the question is about land. Land, unlike a nuclear bomb, has a vast number of useful applications, and therefore competition for it can be quite substantial.

Privatization scenarios will, of course, differ greatly depending on how great the mentioned competition is in a specific case, and how developed the mechanisms of self-governance are in that location.

Where competition is lower, homesteading is more likely. Whoever hustle first takes the best plot. Whoever is a bit later takes the adjacent one. The latecomers take a couple more, and the rest figure that they won’t get the cream of the crop here and go look elsewhere.

Where competition is high and local self-governance is weak, the plot will be seized by the first person to hustle, and then a stronger subject will arrive and declare: dude, you’ve gotten too arrogant, get the hell off my field right now! The arrogant dude will haggle a bit to save face, perhaps receive symbolic compensation—and get the hell out.

And where lawlessness has long been eradicated by the local community, the most likely scenario is the hiring of an auctioneer, who will prepare the land lots for sale, conduct an auction, and then distribute the proceeds, minus their own commission, among all the local residents who also claimed the land but were not ready to pay too much for it.

The scenario you mentioned—”let’s democratically vote on who gets a tasty piece of the pie for free, which any of us is smart enough to want as private property”—seems less likely to me: if I receive no compensation, why on earth would I agree to vote for someone else? In such a vote, it is most logical for everyone to vote for themselves, and this would lead to the need to form a joint-stock company with equal shares for the voting participants. Then, the person who needs it more will gradually buy out the shares of those who need it less, and we will arrive at the same model as simply selling the plot as a single lot with subsequent compensation to the losing participants.

Dividing the pie

Look at that, Bitcoin is on the rise again! That’s what life-giving competition for rare resources does! Now, of course, donations from you have become slightly less likely, but just in case: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

So, I understand that under libertarianism, there is seemingly nothing complicated with judges and courts—they will continue as they were. But who will execute the sentence, and on what grounds should one trust a particular person to carry out a court judgment?

anonymous question

With judges and courts under ancap, not only will nothing be difficult—it will be much simpler than it is now.

Currently, one must perform a multitude of strange ritualistic gestures just so the monopolist condescends to review a request and decide something, and these processes drag on insanely long; very often, both litigating parties end up as victims in fact, while only all sorts of intermediaries benefit from the procedure.
The majority of disputes under ancap will resemble modern commercial arbitration: when establishing certain relations, the parties decide in advance whom they trust to resolve their conflicts, and then, having sought a court, voluntarily execute its decision.

In situations where the parties, while establishing relations, do not fully trust each other’s integrity, they can immediately deposit a sufficiently large sum each, granting the arbitrator the right to deduct a penalty from the deposit in favor of the party to whom that penalty is awarded after the conflict is resolved.

An indispensable condition of a court is the voluntary consent of the parties to execute any of its decisions in advance. Forcible summons to court, as well as the forcible execution of a court sentence, is simply ritualized retribution.

Will there be an institution of such retribution under ancap? Yes, it is quite likely there will be.

Imagine that Bob caused some damage to Alice and disappeared. Alice hires detectives and establishes who caused the damage, after which she seeks judgment from persons who are, in her opinion, sufficiently authoritative: what compensation she could forcibly seize from Bob. The court examines the evidence and becomes convinced that the damage was indeed caused by Bob, then decides what compensation would be appropriate, and Alice, with the court decision in hand, begins to seize Bob’s property. The more authoritative the court Alice turned to is for those guarding Bob’s property, the easier it will be for her to achieve the seizure. Sooner or later, Alice receives her compensation, rewards everyone who helped her, and with that, her claims against Bob are exhausted (though he may still have claims against her, since the conflict between Alice and Bob was not settled amicably).

Finally, it may happen that Alice demands Bob’s head as compensation rather than property. Then, if the court recognizes her demand as justified, she, with this decision in hand, begins to hire bounty hunters, setting a reward for Bob’s head. They will be all the more willing to sign up for this work the larger the reward and the more authoritative the judge is for them. And here it will be in Bob’s interest to find Alice and try to reconcile with her (killing Alice may not be enough, as it would not cancel the contract on his head).

Bob, you shouldn’t have disappeared…