Тег: Bitarch

Kickstarter for public goods

Bitark’s Column

In discussions between libertarians and statists, the question “Who will build the roads under ancap?” comes up almost every time. There are many possible answers to this, but I have not encountered a beautiful, universal solution for the problem of providing public goods in a stateless society. At least not until yesterday, when in a stream by the “Antigovernment” community, Savva Shanaev introduced an idea by Alex Tabarrok that is little known in Russia: “Dominant Assurance Contracts”.

Public goods include a wide variety of benefits that anyone can use regardless of whether they paid for them or not — roads, bridges, street lighting, storm sewers, lighthouses, protective dams, herd immunity resulting from universal vaccination, law enforcement, strategic deterrence, waste recycling, sewage treatment, public parks, and much more. The main problem with their provision is the free-rider effect. When it is impossible to charge for the use of public goods, no one will simply pay for them, viewing them as a “given” or hoping that someone else will pay.

The stationary bandit (the state) constantly exploits this to prove its necessity. State propaganda claims that only the state can build roads and bridges, and therefore a territorial monopoly and taxation are needed to fund them.

However, there is a simple and clear way to provide public goods in a completely free market. It has already been implemented on the well-known platform Kickstarter, and without the state, it will be used far more often than it is now. The principle of its operation is roughly as follows.

For example, residents of a neighborhood are tired of breaking their legs and damaging their cars in potholes on the road. An activist contacts a road paving company and gets an estimate. Then, they go to a crowdfunding platform and create a fundraising campaign, specifying the required amount and the deadline for collection. They send letters to the neighborhood residents asking for any possible assistance in funding the road repair and provide a link to the crowdfunding campaign. Anyone can go there and see how much money has been contributed so far, how much more is needed, and when the collection ends. If the required amount is collected by the deadline, the campaign is considered successful, and the road repair company receives the order. If the full amount cannot be collected by the specified date, the money is returned in full to the residents. It is their choice; it means they truly do not need the road repair, and it is absolutely unethical to rob the population of the entire country through taxes to repair their road. Those who cannot stand living without a road move to neighborhoods with a more demanding population, and over time, a natural separation occurs based on the level of demand for infrastructure quality.

Everything is fine, people are satisfied

Libertarianism ex machina

Bitarch, Ancap-tyan

In many plays staged in ancient theater, an unusual technique for resolving character conflicts was often used — “Deus ex machina” (“God from the machine”). It consisted of the sudden appearance of a new god-like character on stage at the end of the work, who had not been mentioned previously in the performance and had the ability to quickly resolve the heroes’ problems. Simply put, external forces solved the heroes’ problems without delving into the essence of the conflict. This technique is suitable not only for works of art, but can also be useful for political transformations aimed at the destatization of society.

Let’s look at any libertarian public page on social media, chat, website, stream, podcast, or channel. What will we see? Most likely, an endless discussion of the same topics — how libertarian courts work, who will build roads under ancap, contractual slavery, abortions, the agency of children, nuclear weapons, drugs, the Austrian School of Economics versus Keynesianism and state planning, minarchism versus ancap, ancap versus panarchy, territorial communities versus ECUs. Often, this boils over into an endless holy war, where people spend many days in a row defending their point of view.

But the thing is, if you argue endlessly among yourselves and spend all your resources on it, you won’t achieve much! And is it even necessary? Perhaps there exists a single universal recipe for how to resolve all these problems at once and spend our scarce resources for the benefit of the movement?!

Yes, it exists and is found in the very nature of the state — a stationary bandit can conquer a society only when the balance of violence potential (BVP) is disrupted, while when this balance is maintained, a stateless society exists quite stably, as proven within the methodology of neo-institutionalism. You can hear about this briefly and clearly in the first part of Alexander Auzan’s lecture “Evolution of the Stationary Bandit.” After the formation of centralized coercive structures (the state), movement in the opposite direction toward a decentralized society becomes impossible without applying external effort to the system (this pattern is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics: heat will not spontaneously transfer from a colder body to a warmer one).

If we restore the BVP, the costs of initiating violence become higher than the costs of defense, and the territorial monopoly of the state simply disappears. Beyond that, everything else simply doesn’t matter! Of course, it is better to know the answer in advance as to who will build roads or how to determine the agency of children, but even without that, people will have no choice but to solve this without the state. It simply cannot exist when the BVP is maintained. If you are a programmer or simply know Boolean logic, you understand well: after calculating the value of the first operand in a conjunction (&&), you don’t need to calculate all the other operands if it is FALSE, as the result of the conjunction will be FALSE anyway. Or for a disjunction (||), you can skip calculating the other operands if the first is TRUE, because the result will be TRUE anyway.

It follows that a sufficient condition for the transition to libertarianism is merely bringing the violence potential in society to a more uniform distribution. As you have probably already guessed, this can be achieved by creating and spreading tools for the doctrine of deterrence (DD).

The advantage of this approach is that the development, production, and implementation of DD tools into wide use can be carried out by a much broader circle of people than those currently involved in political campaigning and protest actions. Co-opting techies who can assemble a drone, a blinding laser, or other interesting tools from freely available parts to fight the regime is far more promising in terms of expanding the protest base than limiting recruitment to humanities scholars and economists who are well-versed in the nuances of ideology. Even more useful is the involvement of engineers and managers capable of organizing the mass production of such items, which is also a very numerous category. It should also be noted that semi-cottage production or writing a software product is easily hidden from the state and is therefore safer than attending rallies, which serves as an additional stimulating factor.

When reliable, mass-produced, and inexpensive tools for deterring aggressors are available even to a grandmother, it won’t be long before the “market decides” the fate of the state. After the deus ex machina does its work, all of today’s theoretical disputes about how to organize under ancap will abruptly move into the practical plane. We observed something similar relatively recently, when economists argued about whether it was possible to return to the gold standard in the era of fiat money, and then Satoshi arrived, and now instead of the gold standard we have the bitcoin standard. That’s it, the subject of the dispute has vanished; the agenda is now the widespread practical implementation of private hard money.

Vaccination against violence. The example of the Senoi people.

Bitarch’s Column

In the LiveJournal blog of science fiction writer Alexander Rozov (known primarily for his Meganesian cycle), an interesting post was published regarding the idea of a “vaccination against violence” applied by the Senoi people in Malaysia. Based on other posts in his blog, it is easy to conclude that Rozov sympathizes with the idea of the deterrence doctrine (DD) — manifestations of it are mentioned with enviable regularity.

Why is the Senoi culture of interest to us? This is an extremely primitive ethnic group in technological terms, where blowguns with poisoned arrows are still used as weapons. Nevertheless, the Malays at the end of the 19th century, according to Miklouho-Maclay, were clearly afraid to touch them. The fact is that from early childhood, every Senoi person learns intolerance toward violence. To any initiation of aggression directed at them, they are obliged to apply counter-violence instead of appealing to an external authority. This idea is instilled throughout their entire lives — every morning at breakfast, Senoi families tell each other about their dreams and how they confronted danger, if there was any in them.

Rozov highlights the main points of Senoi society:

1. On one hand, the Senoi are clearly not people prone to tolerating violence against themselves (the Malays would not have feared the weapons of these almost primitive characters otherwise, nor would they have described how quickly a person hit by the combat element of Senoi weaponry dies).

2. On the other hand, internal Senoi tribal customs are clearly not aggressive and are not built on violence.

3. Miklouho-Maclay believed that the Senoi were a dying ethnic group (since they were clearly at a lower level of socio-technical development than the surrounding Malays). But now, 150 years after Miklouho-Maclay’s research, the Senoi population is roughly the same as it was then. In other words, it is a quite stable population.

And he draws the primary conclusion:

“Active opposition to a threat. As it turns out, this trait does not contradict peaceful, non-aggressive customs at all. On the contrary, it is a complementary element. For someone who knows how and is ready to defend themselves, it is easier to be non-aggressive.”

Friendly natives and their deadly weapons

The described example shows that super-modern bee-sized drones or nuclear missiles are not at all mandatory for the successful implementation of the deterrence doctrine. All that is needed is the willingness of as many people as possible in society to apply counter-violence, thereby increasing the costs of initiating aggression. Specifically how they are increased does not matter much. Even light mockery, spitting, a sidelong glance, ignoring, boycotting, shaming, and other actions without any violence at all, but applied by a large number of people, will make the life of any politician unbearable and force them to stop working for a stationary bandit (in terms of the deterrence doctrine: the costs of counter-violence will exceed the benefit of initiating violence, the conditional salary received from the stationary bandit, who, in turn, obtained these funds by coercing citizens to pay taxes).

One can even derive a dependency: the more people in a particular society are intolerant of violence, the less powerful (and, accordingly, technologically complex) weaponry is necessary for the successful deterrence of an aggressor. If in some country only one (!) person is ready to apply counter-violence against an aggressor on the level of the USA, then the only option for deterrence is nuclear weapons with a “dead hand” auto-launch system (which is extremely complex and insanely expensive), but if 90% of the population are ready to apply counter-violence, blowguns will suffice. The war in Somalia (the invasion and subsequent retreat of the US army) demonstrated this perfectly.

The image is clickable. The power units are conventional; the mathematical apparatus for the deterrence doctrine in this direction has not been developed

Personal Deterrence Doctrine

Bitarch’s Column

I will start by noting that this is a thought experiment and a test of a philosophical concept, not a discussion of technological implementation.

The essence of the idea is very simple. There is a potential aggressor in the form of a group of people (a criminal organization). You probably already guess who is being referred to. Although besides a Westphalian state, this could also be an aggressive ECU or a territorial community. A lone individual possessing a technology, which we will conventionally call MinMAD, opposes the criminal organization.

This technology ensures mutual assured destruction (MAD) of only two individuals—if the victim of aggression dies, one person from the criminal organization dies immediately (for example, a random government official, regardless of their relationship to the specific case). The victim of aggression may use conventional weapons to oppose the criminal organization (for example, firing a machine gun at a police squad sent to detain them) and remain alive as long as the aggressor does not destroy them. But if a cruise missile is then launched at their house and they perish, a random member of the criminal organization will die instantly. They can also activate MinMAD independently, for example, if they are taken prisoner. In that case, both they and one random member of the criminal organization will die immediately.

From the conditions of the problem, it is clear that both the criminal organization and the victim are not anonymous. Suppose that in a certain territory, at least 10-20% of the residents have MinMAD. Question: is it possible to maintain institutionalized coercion (the state) in this territory?

My assumption is an absolute “no”: no one will want to participate in the criminal organization (the state), knowing that there is a very high probability they could die. Accordingly, the necessary deterrent effect is achieved, forcing government officials to abandon coercion and seek other ways of making a living that are not based on robbery (which is what “taxes” actually are).

Ancap-chan’s Comment

Bitarch and I disagreed on the prospects of such a doctrine, and now we are submitting the discussion for your judgment.

I believe that we already live in a society where this experiment was conducted and led to results that differ significantly from those intended. In the past, the state was relatively compact, and those who opposed it were executed. This led to the emergence of tactics of individual terror by the resistance, which strongly demotivated government employees from performing their duties. But since then, the state has adapted to this threat, and, firstly, it has exponentially expanded the number of government employees, budget workers, and other beneficiaries of the existing system, and secondly, it has stopped killing its opponents, preferring more “vegetarian” methods, such as short prison sentences and fines. Thus, on the one hand, the resistor is demotivated from self-sacrifice, since they only face temporary inconvenience—and on the other hand, the risk of death for government employees has become significantly lower, since there are now millions of them.

So—no. A modern deterrence doctrine should imply the elimination of specifically the person who gives the order to initiate violence, and the higher their position in the state hierarchy, the better. Also, a modern deterrence doctrine should, whenever possible, remove the person practicing it from the line of fire, rather than relying on proud self-sacrifice. A “minimal” deterrence doctrine is like a vaccination against a disease for the state, rather than the disease itself.

P.S. By the way, since the deterrence doctrine is so prominent in Bitarch’s work, he created a separate VKontakte public page, where he puts all materials on this topic to make access to them more convenient.

Anarchist Deterrence Doctrine)

Contract Enforcement

Bitarch’s Column

The question of permissible methods of contract enforcement was touched upon during Mikhail Svetov’s lecture in Novosibirsk. Svetov once again unequivocally expressed his position—physical violence (coercion) must not be used. The maximum that can be done against a violator is ostracism.

Unfortunately, not everyone accepts this moral position, so I will try to explain it, relying on utilitarianism and game theory. The example described below is an original illustration for the summary of the RAND Corporation study On the Doctrine of Deterrence, chapter “Local Balance of Power: An Important, but Not Always Decisive Factor.”

“Suppose I entered into a contract with you and decided to break it on my own. You dug in your heels and began to threaten me with ‘special forces’ who would forcibly seize my property. Assume you can send ten fighters, but I can guaranteedly destroy one of them. I make it clear that I am prepared to go to the end. For the fighters to agree to such a risk, you would have to offer each of them $10M. Suppose the contract amount is $100K, and I possess assets that can be liquidated for only $1000. You evaluate the ratio of benefits to costs—and tell me something like: ‘Get out, I don’t want to have anything to do with you anymore; people are right, it’s better not to touch shit!’. After that, we part ways, and you no longer enter into any deals with me. Under certain circumstances, you can retaliate by placing information about my behavior in the public domain, thereby prompting other people to join the ostracism.”

As seen from the example above, contract enforcement through physical coercion becomes impossible in a society where there is at least some balance of violence potential (different from the conditional ‘zero’ for citizens and ‘infinity’ for the state, as is usually the case in etatist societies).

In his book “For a New Liberty,” Murray Rothbard provides historical examples confirming the described theory and shows his affinity for it.

“The fact is that in the Middle Ages and up until 1920, merchants relied exclusively on the power of ostracism and boycotts by other local merchants. In other words, if someone refused to obey the decision of an arbitrator or ignored his decision, other merchants brought this fact to everyone’s attention and everyone refused to deal with the rebel, which quickly brought them to their knees. Woolridge provides a characteristic example of this:

‘Merchant courts were effective because merchants agreed that their decisions would be enforced. One who refused to obey was not sent to prison, but he did not remain a merchant for long after that. The influence of his colleagues and partners proved more effective than physical coercion. Take John of Homing, who made his living in the wholesale fish trade. John sold a batch of herring, all of which was supposed to be the same as in the three barrels presented to the buyer, but it soon turned out that it was actually rotten, and even mixed with sprat. He had to quickly reimburse the buyer in full under threat of ostracism from other merchants.’

Over time, ostracism became an even more effective means, since a situation arose where one who had once disobeyed an arbitrator’s decision could no longer expect any other intermediary to deal with them. Industrialist Owen D. Young, head of General Electric, concluded that moral censorship carried out by other businessmen operates far more effectively than the official judicial system. Modern technologies, computers, and credit ratings make the threat of nationwide ostracism more effective than ever before in the past.”

Autoimmune Damage to the State, or How the Power of the State Itself Can Be Used for Its Destruction

Bitarch’s Column

In medicine, there is a class of diseases known as autoimmune. These include muscle weakness (myasthenia gravis), type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and others. The essence of these diseases is that antibodies (killer cells) begin to recognize the host’s tissues (human, animal) as harmful and attack them. Most often, this happens after infection by a specific virus that, in terms of recognition by the host’s immunity, resembles healthy tissues (to put it simply). The antibodies simply fail to see the difference between whom to attack—the virus or healthy tissues—and kill everyone.

Autoimmune damage can be observed in any complex system, not just biological ones. For example, many users of computer antivirus software are familiar with the problem of the deletion of normal files that the antivirus mistook for malicious. Those who use browser extensions for ad blocking (AdBlock) know well that they often disrupt the normal operation of a website. This happens precisely because the blocker takes normal website code for an advertisement—and removes it.

The state also represents a complex system and can easily be subjected to an autoimmune attack. An interesting situation arises here—the more security forces and various services a state has, the more effective the autoimmune strike will be. This strategy bypasses the well-known assertion that “the state is stronger, it can easily crush you, therefore a forceful struggle is useless,” since for the forceful struggle against the state, it uses the state’s own force.

How can an autoimmune strike against the state be implemented? There are many ways; the main thing is to understand the general meaning. Here are some examples:

1) Realistic silicone masks of the faces of officials, security personnel, and other enemies of freedom (hereinafter – etatists). In them, we do whatever it takes to set up the etatists to be targeted by other security forces.

2) Imitation of the fingerprints of well-known etatists. Throw a bottle through an FSB window, and they “bottle” whoever we want.

3) Planting Trojan horses on the computers of etatists to proxy traffic. From there, one could, for example, engage in carding, stealing money from state banks and other organizations linked to bandits, and spending it on the promotion of libertarianism. They will “come” specifically for the etatists (or they won’t come, deciding that these etatists have the right to steal money from the state—the main thing here is that another Magnitsky or even Navalny does not suffer from this—note by Ancap-chan).

4) Ordering drugs from the darknet to the addresses of etatists and reporting it to the proper authorities.

5) Not hesitating to send anonymous tips for any reason against etatists: smoking in a prohibited place, parking under a sign, cruel treatment of their own children, walking a dog without a muzzle, meetings with girls under 16, non-compliance with fire safety/labor protection/health and safety regulations/taxes/illegal immigrants, and other violations at enterprises owned by etatists.

6) Registering a SIM card in the name of an etatist and committing several victimless “crimes” using a smartphone that has never been used before.

Ancap-chan’s Comment

The tactic considered above is another tool from the agorist toolbox against the state, alongside the uber-retribution that you perceived so ambiguously, for agorism is not reduced to counter-economics alone. Counter-economics is its most important part, as those claiming a life without a state must be able to demonstrate that they can provide themselves with all the most important benefits of civilization without the state. However, the state must not only be undermined but also tamed, otherwise the home-tormentor will not perish.

Hello, government, we have illegal migrants on our roof!

Is Libertarianism a Utopia? Yes, just like the idea of the personal computer.

Bitark’s Column

Not a day goes by without me coming across phrases like “ancap is a utopia,” “a fantasy world,” or “pink ponies.” Those who write this (usually authoritarian-right conservatives and traditionalists) apparently assume that by doing so, they are protecting stability. In reality, they are only ensuring that inevitable changes occur according to the harshest possible scenario for themselves.

Let’s look at history. What was said about the idea of a federal republic and the separation of powers in the early 18th century? It’s a utopia, a federal republic is impossible, and how dare you insult the king! What about the unacceptability of slavery and serfdom in the early 19th century? It is the nature of things; you are utopians! And what about women’s suffrage in the mid-19th century? It’s a utopia; where would a woman get a political position? She will vote however her husband tells her. Was it different with the rights of Black people and LGBTQ individuals in the 1950s? Have you eaten too many mushrooms, seeing a fantasy world with rainbows?! You don’t see it—people of different colors—so why on earth would a Black person be served in a whites-only bar?

Every time a new social ideology emerged, conservatives refused to recognize it until the very end. Society would reach a breaking point where enduring the status quo was no longer possible, after which necessary reforms were implemented haphazardly, by force, across the entire country at once. This inevitably caused excesses, enormous casualties and suffering, economic damage, and led to the creation of privileges for the previously oppressed group (now, conservatives in first-world countries complain that they are persecuted for criticizing LGBTQ people, but this is merely a natural response to their own previous lawlessness; the ashes of Alan Turing echo in the hearts of queer activists). In the end, conservatives each time received what they hate most—radical change, chaos, and repression. Yet they could have had peaceful development…

How does this relate to libertarianism? Currently, many libertarians would be quite satisfied with the non-interference of protectors in local self-government. People would willingly occupy unclaimed lands, experiment there with social orders that suited them specifically, and would not immediately aim for the capitals. This is a very moderate agenda that should cause no direct inconvenience to anyone. Various practices of social organization in these territories could be evolutionarily refined and gradually reach large cities in a mature form, without causing upheavals.

But no, these vigilantes stay alert, suppressing any independent initiative—from non-traditional sexual practices and immoral music to informal businesses and self-organizing communities—and they will eventually wait until they are beaten in the streets, until the state collapses with a default on social obligations, GDP drops several times over, impoverishment occurs, and gangster “roofs” appear, which, as Laxi Catal predicts, will become the prototype of the ECU. There is a well-known joke that Nicholas II should be posthumously awarded the Order of Lenin for his heroic efforts in bringing society to a revolutionary situation. Now, conservatives, as they did a century ago, are making the same mistake that cost the country tens of millions of lives, starting with their own.

“The Ten Plagues of Egypt” as an Example of Deterrence Doctrine

Bitarch’s Column

One may have different views on the truthfulness of the stories described in the Bible, but that does not negate their philosophical meaning. A rather interesting idea was described in the Book of Exodus, known as the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In essence, it describes the idea of applying a strategy known today as “deterrence by punishment” or the deterrence doctrine (DD), two millennia before the research of the RAND Corporation in the mid-20th century.

This biblical plot, in modern terms, describes a struggle for the right of a specific minority group to secede from a state. For those who have not read the Bible or no longer remember the details, let us recall its essence. In Ancient Egypt, the Jews were in a state of slavery; the Pharaoh categorically refused to let them go. Moses, the leader of the Jewish community, threatened the Pharaoh with misfortunes for himself and his subjects until he agreed to release the Jews. These misfortunes (“the Egyptian plagues”) became increasingly severe each time—from the completely harmless reddening of the Nile’s water and the plague of frogs to the death of the firstborn children of the Pharaoh and his subjects. Nine times the Pharaoh refused to release the Jews; on the tenth, he let them go.

Thus, the Pharaoh continuously initiated aggression against the Jews by keeping them in slavery. The costs of keeping them were minimal, and the profit was enormous. After Moses began the “deterrence campaign,” the Pharaoh’s costs gradually increased (accordingly, the profit and moral satisfaction from keeping the Jews began to decrease). At a certain point, the cost of retention exceeded the total profit from their retention, and the Pharaoh gave up.

How can this be applied to modern times? Very simply—consider all supporters of etatism to be your enemies, who constantly initiate aggression against us through the institution of the state. Constantly increase the costs of initiating violence until the benefit from a salary, social status, or moral satisfaction becomes less than the damage that will be inflicted upon them.

Is someone calling to beat opposition members with chains? Their photo, name, and address appear in the public domain, and such a person’s peaceful life comes to an end. Do old women from Putin’s squads barge into your office? You have every right to use at least pepper spray against them (although, of course, it would be safer to hold a security license and a contract with Navalny’s headquarters, where these women are barging in). Do teachers at school call you a fifth column and enemies of the people? Their photos appear in hallways, the lock on the front door somehow strangely jams, you have to buy solvents to clean the door and walls, wake up to snowballs hitting the window, and so on.

Of course, this is not enough, for Moses not only asked the Lord to send plagues but also exhorted the Pharaoh. So, one must not only express their “fuck you” to the supporters of the state but also explain the desired alternative and encourage repentance; otherwise, the sent plagues will be seen by them as meaningless harassment, and this will only harden them or drive them into the depths of apathy.

Freedom of speech and the First Amendment — are they a blessing?

Bitarch’s Column

Among libertarians, there is a firm belief that the existence of freedom of speech in a country based on the principle of the American First Amendment to the Constitution is an unambiguous benefit that helps us fight statism. But is this actually the case, or is it a cleverly planned trap that has helped the US ruling elites avoid revolutions for almost two and a half centuries?

Let’s look at the fate of well-known anti-statists in the US who began to pose any significant threat to the state. Jim Bell, the creator and evangelist of the “assassination market” idea, was imprisoned for “tax evasion.” Larken Rose, a well-known ancap, also ended up behind bars for taxes. I think there is no need to remind everyone of the story with Julian Assange and the sexual allegations; everyone knows it already.

What conclusion can be drawn from this? If your words pose a real danger to the stationary bandit, a pretext for repression will always be found; it is not necessary for him to repress specifically for words. What do you think will happen if a full-page advertisement is printed in the New York Times with the text “The State is a stationary bandit! Panarchy is the primary path to freedom!”? I am willing to bet that the next day the FBI will find child pornography or drugs in the possession of the activist who ordered such an ad. Or it will turn out that he likes to abuse his dog and is generally not opposed to eating it. Unfortunately, most active fighters against the state in the US do not understand this.

In Russia, the situation is completely different. The authorities repress directly for politics, and they don’t even disguise it particularly well. We have convenient “extremism” articles with extremely vague content, allowing anyone to be imprisoned for anything, so there is no need to bother planting child pornography on an activist. Because of this, all active fighters against the state use VPNs, burner SIMs, encryption, and intermediaries from the very beginning of their activities, and they never show their faces. As a result, in terms of the difficulty of capture, such an activist is equal to a professional hacker, so it is easier to earn medals by searching for extremism on VKontakte. The investigator is not concerned with the fact that a real fighter against the state can indeed be dangerous to the state: that is not his level of responsibility. The more pressure the authorities apply, the more anonymization methods the fighters against the state will use, and the faster its territorial monopoly will be destroyed. The same cannot be said for countries where people still believe in freedom of speech.

Ancap-chan’s Commentary

Yesterday, Ved Neuman released an article in which he responded to a comment by Laksi Katal regarding the deadlock of the “butt-end”: the lighter the power, the more willingly people surrender to it.

As we can see, opinions are divided on what is more beneficial for supporters of the total abolition of the state—an openly repressive state that discredits itself, or its liberalization, with a potential increase in the level of trust in it. Bitarch and Laksi Katal believe that the principle of “the worse, the better” works: the worse the state, the easier it is to convince people that it is not needed at all. Following Ved, I believe that appetite comes with eating, and once one starts pushing back the state, one will not want to stop, especially if life actually improves at every stage of the reforms. This is especially relevant in countries that lack a developed culture of respect for the opposition, where the custom is to finish off the opponent. Once the state begins to bend, they will finish it off.

So it seems strange to me to consider it a bad thing if the state has to seek indirect paths for repression because the direct path is blocked. On the contrary, this is merely a reason to block those very indirect paths. Freedom of speech exists—it must be used to stop persecution for victimless crimes, such as possession of child pornography or drug use, and any flailing of the state in this regard should be used to incite hatred toward the institution itself, which, instead of trying to justify its existence with whatever useful things, continues to insist on its right to repress a wide circle of persons on its own initiative, without a request from victims.

The brief essence of our discussion

The Idea of National Sovereignty as a Path to Ancap

Bitarch, Ancap-tyan

The title looks very strange, doesn’t it? One would think that the idea of national sovereignty originates from the Peace of Westphalia, when after the Thirty Years’ War it was decided that each ruler is sovereign in their own territory and manages their own internal affairs, and neighbors should have nothing to do with it. It was the Peace of Westphalia that gave birth to the modern type of state with its territorial monopoly.

However, by the nineteenth century, the idea of the ruler’s sovereignty evolved into the idea of the nation’s sovereignty, as the power of rulers was no longer associated with divine right and was forced to justify itself through the will of the people. For the sake of the nation’s greatness, it became convenient to wage wars far bloodier than some unfortunate Thirty Years’ War. God fought on the side of the larger battalions; nation-states diligently expanded, acquired colonies—and the world, in general, was moving toward being divided among a handful of countries, which were then to clash in a final and decisive battle, where a global hegemon would be determined and a single world power would be formed. At least, if the free market promoted the formation of monopolies, that is exactly what would have happened. But instead, the First World War led to the collapse of four continental empires, and after the Second World War, colonies began to break away from all the other great powers.

The UN has already officially enshrined the equal status of all countries, and the principle of territorial sovereignty was officially supplemented by the directly contradictory principle of a nation’s right to self-determination. In essence, this cheapened the Westphalian principles, and since then, the number of countries in the world has continued to increase. Also, the good old traditions of invasions for the sake of establishing progressive orders have returned to the world stage, replacing the religious wars that are not particularly relevant today.

There are still far more ethnicities in the world than states, so countries may continue to break apart along ethnic lines for quite some time. At the same time, the incentive for people to separate is not ethnic differences as such, but primarily differences in cultures. But there are even more cultural communities than ethnicities; they arise and mutate constantly.

The ease of movement of people, goods, money, and information leads to the fact that any territorial borders are becoming increasingly permeable, and their very existence is becoming less meaningful.

It is not yet clear how soon and as a result of what chain of events the notion of the right of cultures to self-determination will become mainstream, as previously happened with nations. Purely logically, there are no grounds by which a certain group of people, chosen by a more or less arbitrary criterion, has a right to sovereignty, while another group of people or even a single person does not.

This question is discussed in quite some detail in Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty”; I will allow myself a small quote from it:

A more serious question can be asked: does the adherent of the laissez-faire doctrine recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from the country? Is it lawful for West Ruritania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why? And if so, then what could be the logical conclusion of the division of countries? Could not a small district secede, then a city and part of that city, then a residential block, and finally, a specific individual? Recognizing any right to secede in the absence of its logical conclusion, limiting the right to individual secession—which logically limits anarchism—will lead to individuals being able to secede from the state and hire their own protective agencies, and the state will collapse.

Thus, a clear trajectory for the development of social relations emerges: from the sovereignty of personalities over subjects, through the sovereignty of increasingly smaller groups, to the sovereignty of each individual personality, with the complete eradication of the very category of subjecthood. And if once only a few hundred people in the entire world could claim that “I am the state,” then in the foreseeable future, every person will be able to say this of themselves with full right.

Man to man is a nation.

In perspective—more than seven billion points