Тег: Ancap

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

Anglo-Saxon or Roman law?

Anonymous question

Oh. Usually, however, continental law is contrasted with Anglo-Saxon law.

In the first case, the judge determines the decision for each specific issue; he may base it on precedents as well as various codes, but he is also entitled to establish his own precedent. The only thing a judge is strongly advised not to neglect is general legal principles, many of which were discovered precisely within the framework of Roman law.
As for the second case, the judge’s role is reduced to determining which article of a particular code describes the situation under consideration, and then making a decision according to that article.

Effectively, the ideal judge in continental law is a computer expert system. Only in cases where legislative uncertainty is found does the judge have to turn to precedents (so-called law enforcement practice) or even establish a precedent himself.

It is easy to see that continental law is permeated with a spirit of distrust toward the judge and his sense of justice, provoking cynicism and the thoughtless stamping out of decisions. Of course, all other things being equal, I would prefer precedent law, especially in complex matters.

However, one of the most important features of Ancapistan is the complete decentralization of law. If the parties recognize the jurisdiction of the court over them, it is completely irrelevant whether the court judges by codes, precedents, Sharia, or a table of random numbers—the decisions of such a court must be obeyed. If even one party does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court over them, then it is no longer a court, but some legally null procedure.

Why is the opinion that there will be some problems with roads under ancap so popular? Doesn’t the existence of toll roads show that their construction can be profitable?

Anonymous question

Roads are an easily accessible, common-sense example of a public good provided by the state through:

  • taxes
  • laws on land expropriation for road construction
  • uniform traffic rules within the jurisdiction
  • traffic police and other structures performing related functions.

In general, roads are a large, complex, and expensive “something,” yet any car owner can get on the road and drive for free. But if toll roads owned by different parties are introduced, the average car owner immediately envisions countless barriers, queues at them, and similar clumsy interfaces for taking their money. “No way,” thinks the car owner, “taxes are better.”

The fact that building toll roads can be profitable does not prove the advantages of ancap. The advantage of ancap is proven by the fact that the construction of free roads can be profitable.
A road does not lead from void to void. It connects plots of land, thereby increasing their transport accessibility and, consequently, their commercial value. It is precisely to increase the value of their land that owners have a vested interest in building roads to it. Any owner of a summer house in a cottage community can confirm this for you.

Has public immunity been lowered in Ancapistan, since there are special kindergartens for the children of anti-vaxxers in Ancapistan and no state standards for mandatory vaccinations?

Anonymous question

Who even handles vaccinations in Ancapistan? Obviously, those who benefit from it. But if everyone around you is vaccinated and you are not, the probability of getting infected turns out to be negligible. This creates a free-rider effect: it is beneficial for each individual not to be vaccinated themselves (no need to spend on the vaccine, no need to deal with side effects), but it is beneficial for everyone that all others are vaccinated. Etatists scare us by claiming that without the benevolent sovereign’s whip, no one will get vaccinated because of this effect.

The most obvious beneficiaries of mass vaccination are insurance companies: people get sick less often, which means lower insurance payouts. Therefore, in our beloved Ancapistan, they are the ones highly interested in stimulating people to get vaccinated. One could simply make vaccination a condition for purchasing a policy, but it is easier to lower the policy price for those who are vaccinated.

As a result, firstly, an economic incentive emerges to create a positive externality for others, and secondly, those who are not vaccinated are the least interested in clustering together. On the contrary, it is in their interest to disperse as evenly as possible to benefit from herd immunity.

In general, problems that are almost always solved under a state using a whip are solved in Ancapistan using a carrot. Switch to our side, we have carrots!

We exist, yes!

Would the development and invention of new technologies slow down if patent law were abolished? You are in favor of the idea that information cannot be property, right?

Anonymous question

Yes, indeed, only a scarce resource can become property. As long as a dozen people possess information, it is a scarce resource. When information is known to everyone, what scarcity can there be? Meanwhile, patent law is the forced imposition on everyone of a state where they know something but are obliged to pretend they do not. It is as if I make a cool print on a T-shirt, wear it, and then pursue everyone who is inspired by this print and makes one for themselves, or creatively adapts the idea.

But the question was not about that, but about how the speed of the emergence of new technologies will change when patent law dies.

The very way new technologies emerge will change. Currently, it is profitable to develop something within an isolated collective, not knowing what competitors are working on, spending a heap of resources on leak protection, and then obtaining patents—thereby blocking the way for others. That’s it, you have priority; you can breathe a sigh of relief and calmly use the results while others try to find bypasses for the development of the technology that you did not protect with a patent.

In the absence of patents, it will be profitable to work as openly as possible and exchange all intermediate results with anyone interested. The speed of development will increase. The efficiency of technologies will increase because there will be no need to use unpatented bypasses.

The question arises: why would manufacturers feed their developers at all, wouldn’t it be more profitable to save on them and use others’ developments? No, it wouldn’t, because the maximum profit in the market will be gained by whoever manages to set up production and sales first, and for that, one needs to be very deeply involved in all the latest developments. Therefore, an in-house development team is not only an element of prestige but also the ability to remain at the cutting edge of technology.

As a result, those who want to stay in place will have to run forward even faster than they do now, since no state will tie anyone’s legs with any patent law.

Everyone started running—so I started running too

And what about the age of consent? Are all libertarians really pedophiles?

Anonymous question

The age of consent is simply an arbitrarily chosen age from which the state allows a “yes” answer to be considered “yes” without punishment; in other words, it is a crude and expensive-to-maintain crutch for common sense. In the absence of a state, nothing prevents a person from independently relying on common sense and independently weighing the consequences of their actions.

As for a “no” answer, libertarianism at no age allows it to be considered “yes” without punishment, which resolves the problem of violence.

I’ll just go ahead and agree!