Тег: Ancap

Easements under ancap

The topic was raised in the panarchist chat, but I had not previously published the considerations I shared in response, so I decided to organize the topic into a separate post.

To begin with—here is what I have already written on the topic of transit through someone else’s territory. In short: in densely populated areas, owners of adjacent plots will have a market incentive to profit from transit, while in sparsely populated areas, models of reciprocal altruism are more likely to work, where allowing transit costs little, forbidding it costs a lot, and the reciprocal gratitude for granting permission may prove very valuable at the right moment.

And now, what I would like to add. In essence, an easement is a claim by one neighbor to use the property of another neighbor, recognized by the latter. As long as the agreement lasts, there are no problems. One lets another use their lawnmower, and in return, the other allows them to use a bicycle; everyone is happy. But then the bicycle is sold to a third party. Naturally, by default, it is not burdened by any easement upon sale: the new owner does not care who had the right to use their newly acquired property or on what grounds; all agreements regarding this must be built from scratch.

Now, it is roughly the same story with land. If an old neighbor used the right of passage through your plot, then when they sell the land, the new owner does not automatically acquire the right of passage. However, if the old neighbor brought the buyer to you during the sale and said, for instance, “I’m leaving, this person will be here instead of me, discuss the passage with him”—then it’s a completely different matter; you sit down and substantively discuss what and how you will concede to each other for the sake of maintaining good neighborly relations.

Of course, if the easement had already been embodied in specific physical communications passing through someone’s land, then an attempt to sever these relations would likely affect not only the interests of the new owner but also those of other neighbors, who should not lose the easement because their agreement remains in force. Nevertheless, the new owner is brought up to speed, for example, on the terms of joint maintenance of these communications.

Generally, it’s quite funny to hear that ancap is supposedly a rampage of unrestrained individualism. No, it is under the state that there is a rampage of unrestrained individualism, because a mediator is forcibly inserted between people, and any issues must be resolved not between each other, but specifically with the mediator—that is, with one state office or another. In conditions of decentralized law, as is proper in decentralized systems, network nodes agree among themselves on the rules of interaction, so individualism is individualism, but the interests of neighbors must be taken into account.

An important point: since the rules are based on tradition, by default, this tradition is dictated by the older owners. They are the ones aware of how things are done here, and new owners may adapt, they may suggest changes, but they are unlikely to be able to change the rules at their own discretion if it affects the interests of the previous owners.

Chapters about ancap finally appear in the book about ancap. The reader will be disappointed.

I have started writing the final, fourth section of the first and most important part of the book about ancap. As usual, I produced two chapters: The first — the concept of ancap, where I simply formulate the banality that anarcho-capitalism is, believe it or not, anarchy plus capitalism. The second — the expansion and contraction of ancap — concerns the dynamics of how the corresponding relations penetrate society.

Essentially, my theory regarding libertarianism and ancap ends here: I tried very hard to be extremely concise, so I don’t even intend to push the fourth section to the traditional four chapters. Instead, I want to write a fairly detailed conclusion summarizing the first part, after which it could well be set sail as a standalone book, serving as a convenient (hopefully) entry point into libertarianism.

The second and third parts are intended to be the application of the previously outlined theory to various practical issues — regarding how different aspects of life may be organized under ancap, and what practical steps are envisioned for the transition to ancap. These parts, unlike the first theoretical one, should lose relevance much faster, whereas the first was written for eternity, to take a small spot on the pedestal, where it is already quite crowded with the greats.

Book about ancap – finished the section on the marketlet

I’ve unexpectedly ended up hanging out in Albania, so my posting pace has slipped a bit. On the other hand, dropping out of the usual flow is very conducive to slow-paced creativity, so I relatively quickly finished the two remaining chapters of the market section in my future book: specifically on the market and on capitalism. In the next section, I will finally begin describing ancap—assuming, of course, that I don’t get swept away somewhere again.

A couple more chapters for the book about ancap

I have put together the first two chapters of the third section of the book about ancap. The section is called “The Market” and, of course, the first chapters are dedicated to anything but the market. In the first one, I ramble on about labor productivity, and then suddenly switch to inequality, and I’m currently pondering whether to remove the final passages. The second chapter is dedicated to planning, and this is the first place in the book where I appeal to specific named authorities, Mises and Hayek, which also creates a certain dissonance, as it might overcomplicate the text.

Overall, I am dissatisfied with the writing pace; I thought I would announce three chapters at once, but the chapter about the market isn’t coming along yet, so I have to report on only two.

What to do if we have ancap and suddenly there’s an epidemic?

Many liberally minded citizens criticize the Russian authorities for failing to take proper sanitary measures against the coronavirus. They claim that at that rare moment when a firm hand of authority was actually needed, it did not appear; instead, the authorities carelessly and unprofessionally let the situation run its course, introducing some local restrictions and leaving measures up to the regions, etc., causing the epidemic to spread to terrifying proportions. Meanwhile, under ancap, the adoption of any restrictive, mandatory measures is fundamentally impossible! How should this be handled?

Minarchist

Using the current bedlam as an example, we can see very clearly: states are incapable of dealing with a pandemic because while one man’s war is another’s windfall—for politicians, the more global the mess, the more convenient the opportunity to profit from government procurement, and the more convenient the opportunity to restrict the freedom of citizens. If people themselves are whining for a firm hand, how can anyone resist the urge to shove that firm hand deeper into the citizen’s pocket?

Let’s compare this with ancap, where states are absent, all ultimate responsibility for one’s own health lies with the people, and if you don’t take care of yourself, you have only yourself to blame.

Some would have been entirely voluntarily insured against infectious diseases and accidents; some, having heirs, would have also insured their lives. If ancap has existed on the planet for a long time, then such insured individuals would make up some stable, significant percentage. But since such a misfortune has occurred that quite a few people are beginning to be infected by a previously unknown virus, this will generate additional demand for health insurance, and the prices for such insurance will spike.

Different insurance companies may act using different means. Some simply pay for treatment under policies within the limits of the insurance premium. Others realize that if nothing is done, all reserves will be spent on paying insurance claims, and to avoid bankruptcy—they should incentivize clients not to get infected. They begin offering payment for every day of self-isolation, plus remote supply of everything necessary (especially to high-risk groups). A third group of companies invests in the development of a treatment protocol. A fourth—in the development of vaccines.

But insurance companies are not the only players in the market. Pharma companies, even without insurance, understand that they can make a lot of money now, and they also begin seeking remedies for the new plague, or increasing the production of existing and well-working ones (more accurately, those in demand on the market, which in general is not the same thing).

In short, entrepreneurial initiative, unrestrained by government shackles, revitalizes sectors of the economy related to health care. What happens to other sectors? And what could possibly happen to them? Who will forbid tourists from flying to a quiet, pleasant place for a vacation? They get insured so as not to wander in an unfamiliar place in confusion about where and how to get treatment if something happens—and they fly. Who will forbid restaurants from operating? No one will forbid them. True, people themselves may enter with caution—which means they need to launch advertising about how safe the establishment is: here is a hand sanitizer, here are tables on an open terrace, here are waiters in masks.

And so on. What will be the result? Simply that throughout the world, the pandemic will proceed roughly as it did in Sweden, perhaps just a little bit better.

And, of course, no one will be able to prevent an investigation into where the virus came from. And if it turns out to be the work of some private laboratory, those guys will go bankrupt from lawsuits. Naturally, payments will not go to everyone, but only to those who managed to sue first—well, no one stopped them from searching, it’s only fair. As for other laboratories, realizing that they will now all be suspected, they will be forced to introduce very advanced standards of openness, otherwise, they won’t be able to work peacefully. And what is there to hide, if intellectual property is not valued under ancap? This means one must work not for the sake of rapid patenting, but for the sake of rapid implementation, in conditions where everyone sees each other and everyone adopts what they can from each other. This is a perfectly fair race, and it is strange to think that they would somehow stop participating in it due to the absence of patents.

– Vaša ancap-kafa
– Hvala vam puno
(translated from Montenegrin: What, an epidemic, really? Then I’ll have another cup.)

Book about ancap – finished the second section

I’m continuing to work on my book. I’ve finished the section on power, breaking the final long sheet into separate pages for better layout consistency, and to make referencing and commenting more convenient. The new chapters are about meritocracy and anarchy as two basic approaches that can conventionally be used to break down attempts to solve societal problems.

I have also formatted the book in epub, and now the latest version will always be available at this link.

The further work plan has changed slightly; I’m thinking of dedicating the third section to the market, and from there steer towards ancap.

As usual, I’m waiting for your comments and donations to encourage the work. And, by the way, if anyone wants to create a cover for the book, I would be very happy to see your options. A pensive girl illustrates the writing process well, but is clearly not suitable for the final product.

Power

I spent a very long time preparing to write another section of my book about ancap, and finally put together two short chapters on power. Their main virtue is that they are stunningly short; I consider this a great achievement of mine. If only I could always express myself so concisely…

I hope that in the next pass I will close the topic of power, or perhaps even finish the first part of the book, which, in essence, should briefly encompass the entire theory of ancap. After that, I will gather a collection of the main interesting practical cases and talk about the ways to implement all this magnificence.

Moral Realism and the Tribal Customs of Ancaps

I was sent a link to an interesting article on the god-forsaken VKontakte, where a certain Konstantin Morozov discusses the moral justification of taxation, specifically for the purpose of implementing a Basic Income, and other interesting mental constructs of the left-libertarian camp. Without irony, I was interested in understanding their logic.

In short, the author’s argument is as follows. The compulsory nature of seizure is not in itself a criterion for its injustice: this is easily demonstrated by the example of damage compensation. Thus, to speak of the injustice of seizure, one must show that property is being seized to which you have a right. But how do you determine what a person has a right of ownership to? What makes them think they have ownership rights to that which is seized as a tax? Legally, this is state property and is subject to payment. Therefore, the libertarians’ resistance to taxes is rooted not in laws, but in morality.

This raises the question of the objectivity of morality. If we stand on the positions of moral relativism, where one thinks one way and another thinks another, and both are right, then the state is just as right in collecting taxes as the libertarian is in refusing to pay them. Thus, if a libertarian wants to justify to others that he specifically is right, he will have to adopt the position of moral realism.

By tracing the immorality of taxes back to the non-aggression principle, the libertarian relies on the idea that freedom requires no rational basis; it is some kind of self-evident good toward which everyone strives. But what exactly is the freedom being discussed? The libertarian conception of freedom as the absence of coercion is far from the only formulation, not even the most popular one, and certainly cannot be considered self-evident.

Next, the author examines several possible approaches to justifying the morality of compulsory seizures for redistribution in favor of the poor: the Lockean proviso, utilitarianism, Nozick’s compensatory justice, reducing the concept of negative liberty to its republican formulation… The author does not insist on the truth of any particular argument; he merely points out that smart men know how to reason beautifully and competently with logic and facts, while frenzied Eastern European libertarians, having filled their heads with their Svetov and up their asses… remain unconvincing, narrow-minded dogmatists demonstrating an extremely low level of discussion.

I am not going to start refuting the points from the article right now. For me, this is rather a useful warning that will come in handy when writing the brochure on ancap. In particular, I need to figure out what to do with moral realism. I define morality as a spontaneous order of entering into conflicts, and it will, of course, differ in various communities. Thus, the book about ancap acquires a sort of ethnographic character. As in, listen, there is such a people as ancaps in the world, and they have these amazing tribal customs, so unlike what is accepted among civilized people, but attractive in their own way, just as the customs of some Polynesians regarding free love are attractive to us. Will I justify why the libertarian social order is the best? Well, I don’t know. I’m not sure.

The book about ancap is being written little by little

I think I’ve finished writing the first section of my book on ancap, regarding the basic principles of libertarianism. I’ve broken it down into separate chapters so it’s not too cumbersome. Also, for the convenience of the readers, I’ve moved all the numerous definitions of terms provided in the text to a separate page. There, you will have the opportunity to get a concentrated overview of the strange conceptual apparatus I use.

I’ve also sketched out a rough table of contents for the second section, which is currently tentatively titled “Power.” The third section will presumably be devoted to the relationship between ancap and libertarianism, serving as an afterword to the first part of the book. I haven’t sketched out the structure for the other two parts of the book yet.

As before, I don’t rule out various edits, additions, and removals, especially if you provide active feedback.

Nothing special, just a small summary and a request for feedback

I continue to write the introductory part of the book about ancap bit by bit, describing the main principles of libertarianism. I think that later I will reformat the text a bit, but for now, it’s becoming quite a large chapter in one piece.

Usually, when I answer a question, I do it in a detailed manner, with examples, metaphors, and other rhetorical gems. In the book, I try not to ramble, and now I’m wondering if I should, and whether it’s becoming too dry. I would like to know your opinion.

On May 20, I fly to Montenegro. This may affect the regularity of posts for about three days, or it may not. I usually don’t schedule publications, so such things are not very predictable.

Since living in Montenegro will be more expensive for me than in Russia, I will have to pay more attention to making money. If you want me to be less distracted from working on the channel, send donations. It will be especially helpful to chip in for the book — the more financial enthusiasm it generates, the faster I will write and the sooner I will finish. The same applies to current translation projects.

Since I will need to register a company to obtain a residence permit in Montenegro, I will try to take advantage of this and organize the acceptance of donations directly in Telegram — Durov created this possibility quite a long time ago, but I didn’t use it because connecting a Telegram store requires a legal entity — and that’s exactly what I will now have.

Also, in the comments of the donations page, I was asked to set up a Monero wallet. I downloaded the wallet from the official website, synchronized the blockchain, and now I’ve even started mining, although that is just for fun, of course. So, here is the Monero address for donations:

84CVRC5iqexHMzLSrUwhcUgw5LkqrkbV5FGWugs6EgQX1YQEM7Kvrvm2sBVjfGwrrhfhvL6j3PdcuaiB6R6Y9ULQPjKWotH

Most likely, I will use the flights to read the Strugatsky brothers’ “Snail on the Slope,” which was ordered for a review long ago — what else is there to do on a plane besides reading books? It’s getting a bit embarrassing; payment for the review was received back in April, which is quite untidy.

Possibly, I will post some fresh travel impressions if they don’t clash too much with the general theme of the channel. If they do — I’ll post them on Boosty.