Тег: Ancap

Until what age do I need to ask your daddy’s permission

Anonymous question

Ancap, boys, this is the decentralization of law.

Dad has his opinion, mom has hers, you have yours, and I have mine. As long as I am actually dependent on my parents, it makes sense for you and me to be interested in their opinions on such matters. Once I stop being dependent, seeking their opinion can only be done for the purpose of building a friendly relationship with them.

And if they don’t agree with each other, then they can figure it out between themselves somehow.

But there is another possibility. You asked my opinion about hooking up, I’m for it. You asked Dad’s, he’s also for it. You asked Mom’s, she’s against it. We decide to ignore Mom’s opinion, and she shoots you in the back of the head for your lack of understanding. Now, when the court hearing happens, Mom will depend on the judge’s opinion regarding the permissibility of her actions, but you will already be indifferent to that.

no mom jokes here!

By the way, the appearance of a permanent source of income brings forward the date of a girl’s emancipation from her parents, so give girls bitcoins 😏
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What to do if an ancap society that has successfully formed in some territory begins to be squeezed by neighbors? For example, if they are a religious state, and its citizens, possessing some kind of superiority (or the support of their state), buy land, move in, but do not want to observe the NAP?

anonymous question

The topic of direct military conflict was best explored by Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly, in the series of articles “Insurance Company ‘Sonechko’ versus the Tsardom of Muscovy”.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Most likely, this volume of material will be sufficient for you to address both the question you asked and several related ones.

But I will still make a small clarification regarding one of the models of creeping expansion you mentioned. Buying up all the land is very unrealistic, because the less unsold land remains, the more expensive it becomes, and the happy sellers of land receive more and more resources, which they can invest in assets that seem more profitable to them than the land they have just sold.

At the same time, the fact that a certain NAP violator is a landowner does not protect them in any way. They violated it — a conflict arose, now they either pay a penalty or they are fought against. In a state, the law may protect a NAP violator, but for ancaps, dealing with such problems is much simpler.

Sonechko

How to acquire land in Antarctica under libertarianism?

anonymous question

I am sure that under libertarianism, farming in the area of, say, the current Vostok Station would be very profitable. See for yourself:

First, constant katabatic winds, meaning energy surplus.

Second, a constant freezing blast, no problems with heat dissipation.
It’s the perfect place for mining, right!

All that’s left is to solve the problem of material strength in such frost, and probably some tinkering with lubrication in the wind turbines, but those are just trivial “boy problems” 😏

Meanwhile, there is an abundance of land in Antarctica—we simply don’t have enough crazy miners to overrun an entire continent; there are other types of business in the world, after all.

Therefore (I am finally starting to answer the asked question), in the foreseeable future, no more complex mechanism for acquiring land ownership than a simple homestead—that is, seizing unclaimed territory—will be required there.

By the way, speaking of miners: send some sats for the development of the channel! Here is the wallet:1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

See how much room there is for farms! Ururu!

That guy wants to create a nuclear bomb under libertarianism (since no one will forbid him from creating it or buying materials for it) and blow it up, how to avoid this scenario?

anonymous question

In the previous post, the question was phrased ambiguously, and it seems the author has clarified it, so now the answer will be slightly about something else.

It’s quite funny, but as far as nuclear bombs are concerned, all libertarian principles are working right now.

In the realm of relations between states, there is de facto anarchy; law is decentralized, governed by the willingness to bear the costs of certain actions, the institution of reputation, and other concepts dear to the ancap heart. When libertarianism is fully implemented in human society, the mechanisms will remain exactly the same, only instead of states, there will be other legal entities, without a territorial monopoly on aggressive violence. They will be equally able to negotiate among themselves on the transfer of technologies and materials, on mutual control measures, on measures to limit access to the nuclear club, on sanctions for violating the non-proliferation regime, on the ban on detonating bombs wherever they please—and similar things we are well acquainted with from media headlines.
If even such ferocious thugs (from the perspective of their relationship with the law) as states manage not to detonate bombs in populated areas because they are constantly staring each other down, then under libertarianism, on average far more sane legal entities will be able to reach effective agreements among themselves.

Again, a nuclear bomb is an effective means of inflicting damage on a large territory, and under ancap, large territorial jurisdictions are extremely unlikely; most likely, they will be contractual, or even arise situationally for each specific legal conflict.

That is, the point of the combat use of nuclear weapons will be near zero; only the scientific and entertainment value will remain. Yes, those very recreational nukes. In deep space—why not.

boom!

I am an anarcho-primitivist. How does ancap benefit me?

anonymous question

You are a strange anarcho-primitivist, because they supposedly reject categories such as profit, along with other delights of civilization, like trade, division of labor, and similar nonsense, without which the great anarcho-primitivist culture spread across the entire earth, and then, where the free land ran out in some places, the Neolithic revolution occurred.

How is ancap beneficial to you? Only under ancap do you have the opportunity to freely settle in unclaimed lands and nomad there, engaging in hunting and gathering. As long as you don’t attack more civilized hunters with guns who hunt in the same territory with your clubs (since you don’t recognize the category of property), no one will have any claims against you: just live in harmony with nature.

The process of urbanization continues for civilized humanity, so there is unclaimed land, and still quite a lot of it.

Statists won’t offer you such conditions, so agree 😉

that’s how anprim seems to me

How to handle age ratings in the media/internet and shock content? Young foals may stumble upon gore, and in the opinion of many people, this may traumatize their psyche.

anonymous question

The person who provides a content hosting service has every right to impose restrictions on it. The person who provides a content consumption service also has every right to restrict that same content. Thus, if a child uses their guardian’s computer, phone, or television, the guardian may restrict the content according to their own ideas of what is appropriate. If a child finds their own ways to obtain information independently, they have every right to use them. For example, they might go behind the garages, and there people are fighting (fucking, shooting up, you name it). Private shock content; if you don’t want to see it, don’t look.

shock content

Ancap or Minarchism?

Anonymous question

Minarchism is legal, so officially I cannot and do not put forward anything beyond minarchist demands. Ancap is more logically consistent, so in any theoretical studies it easily beats minarchism; however, I have to clarify every time that this is pure theory, comrade major, no extremism.

There are two points of view on the method of transition to ancap. One method is political, through minarchism. There are examples in the world of libertarians coming to power and implementing successful, albeit incomplete, minarchist reforms; all that remains is to ensure that this becomes mainstream, and then political pressure can be continued on minarchist states toward full ancap.

The second method is counter-cultural, bypassing minarchism. There is not a single example in the world where minarchist reforms were not followed by a rollback toward greater statism; therefore, it is postulated that the model of a limited state is by definition unstable, and there is no reason to hope that it will remain in this state, let alone voluntarily further cut its own powers. Instead, it is proposed to develop mechanisms of direct non-governmental interactions and to expel the state primarily from the mind. And once the viewpoint that the state in any of its manifestations is nothing more than a harmful parasite, and that people get along perfectly well without it, becomes mainstream, then this parasite will simply fall off because no one will feed it.

This is somewhat similar to two different approaches to fighting trolling in the comments: you can ban them, or you can stop feeding them.

You’d ban someone like that, yeah…

What criminal and civil courts would look like under libertarianism (taking into account that the state is assigned only the role of enforcing court decisions)?

Anonymous question

Everything is simple with civil courts: commercial arbitration already looks the way civil courts should look under libertarianism. The parties agree on whom to invite to adjudicate, that person adjudicates, and then the parties execute the decision. Whoever refuses bears reputational costs, and in a minarchist state, it wouldn’t end there; the state would send bailiffs to enforce the arbitration decision.

With criminal law, it is slightly more complicated.

When the person who used violence does not hide, the task is reduced to the previous one: they and the representatives of the victimized party agree on who will judge, then the court’s decision is executed—voluntarily or forcibly.
If the person who used violence is unknown, first the party interested in the investigation either investigates the matter independently or hires detectives, and only after the NAP violator is found, there may follow either a trial or retribution.

A court cannot be imposed on anyone, because a court decision whose jurisdiction is not recognized by all litigating parties is legally null and void. But if instead of a court, retribution simply took place, then the party that carried out the retribution will now have to prove itself that this was not a violation of the NAP. They will litigate with those who are ready to condemn them for the retribution, present the collected evidence of the NAP violation by the victim of the retribution in court, and will be acquitted. Or not, if the evidence proved insufficient.

Thus, if a criminal hiding from justice realizes that they are already breathing down their neck, they are extremely interested in reaching the nearest prison in time and buying refuge from retribution there while negotiations regarding a trial are underway.

And if you are in prison voluntarily, you would prefer to rent a comfortable room