Тег: coronavirus

Power Control and the Failure of State Democracy

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The events of the coronavirus pandemic clearly demonstrated how some of the most democratic states in the world can easily turn literally into authoritarian regimes with strong government power, suppression of the opposition, and the imprisonment of “undesirable” people. We are talking about Australia and Canada, which rank in the top ten countries in democracy ratings. In the fight against the pandemic, the government of the former decided to resort to total bans on leaving the home and movement of citizens, surveillance of them, and the imprisonment of violators. In the latter, the government responded to truckers’ protests against coronavirus restrictions by blocking bank accounts, suppressing the activities of the opposition, introducing a state of emergency, and arresting some of the protesters. Or let us recall France, which is also a fairly democratic country, yet its police do not hesitate to beat people without masks with batons, and almost any anti-government actions end with a harsh dispersal of protesters by security forces.

Democracy can very easily turn into an authoritarian and repressive regime. And this should not be surprising—what else can be expected from governments that, while perhaps quite democratic and liberal in their goals, still rely on the instrument of force to implement those goals? When a certain body in society has the right to use force to compel people and the ability to effectively exercise that right, it is only a matter of time and the existence of a pretext before force transforms from a simple tool for upholding the law into a tool for carrying out repressions and strengthening power.

Therefore, it is important to understand that the only possible path to achieving a free and non-violent society is the eradication of coercive instruments of management, and the mere replacement of an authoritarian regime with a democracy will yield nothing in the long run. Adhering to democratic and liberal values is absolutely meaningless and useless if, alongside them, the impermissibility of violence is not actively supported, both in private relationships between people and in the implementation of measures by any associations or public governing bodies.

Democracy and liberalism will not limit a stationary bandit in violence

When discussing the issue of state violence and the restriction of freedom, one sometimes encounters the argument that this is not such a big problem, since in the modern world of democracies and liberalism, most states are limited in their ability to use force and violate the freedom of their citizens, and in this, they cannot cross a certain line. But in reality, no institutional factors prevent even the most democratic and liberal states from turning into brutal dictatorships. As long as they are stationary bandits and can “legitimately” use the instrument of violence, as long as they have agents capable of committing violent acts, and ordinary people have neither the right nor the possibility to resist violence, a tightening of social orders can be fully expected, provided there is only a pretext for it.

And recently, such a pretext appeared – the coronavirus pandemic. Of course, the pandemic must be fought, but the primary method chosen for this by many states was precisely violence and the forced restriction of freedoms. Moreover, there was no sense in such harsh measures, based on research on the effectiveness of different measures in the fight against the pandemic; also, using the example of Sweden, which has already returned to pre-COVID life, I showed how informing and encouraging less risky behavior ultimately yield better results than strict control and bans. Forceful coercion is a less effective tool in implementing any measures, unless coercion and the restriction of freedom is the goal in itself.

Before continuing the topic of COVID measures, I would like to recall one example of how states effectively destroyed the freedom of movement around the world by introducing passport and visa control. The pretext for this was the First and Second World Wars, during which states needed to control the movement of people. Was the control lifted after the wars ended, i.e., after the pretext for it disappeared? It was not! States took the opportunity to forever make any movement of people beyond the borders of their own “pens” strictly controlled.

During the coronavirus pandemic, borders turned out to be completely closed, but the essence of the matter is not only in that. In many countries, people were literally locked in their homes, deprived of work, and their movements were monitored, for example, using COVID apps. Now, a telling example of the implementation of such a policy is Australia, where people deprived of freedom literally have to fight with police, their movements are tracked by the state via a smartphone app, and violators of COVID norms face imprisonment and fines. Also, in many countries, police can easily beat and detain you, for example, for the lack of a mask or a vaccination passport (I am attaching a recent case from France to the post). This is also true for Russia, where police have already beaten and brutally detained people without masks many times.

Now I want to ask one question: is it possible to believe that after the pandemic ends, states will truly lift all restrictive measures and return to people the same freedom they had before? As far as I am concerned, relying on this would be great naivety. Of course, some freedoms will be returned, but at the same time, states will most likely retain some of the control. It is unlikely to be like in Sweden, where all COVID measures except for border ones have already been lifted, since this country did not rely on harsh coercive measures from the start. By the way, borders after the pandemic may also remain more controlled than before it, and it is quite likely that in this case, even Sweden will no longer be an exception. In general, one should not rely on the idea that for some miraculous reason states will not punish their citizens with police force, deprive them of freedom, and strictly control them simply because they are developed democracies. The question is not so much about political and social institutions as it is about the willingness and ability to commit violence.

QR codes

I have now distanced myself quite a bit from the current Russian agenda, which is why I hardly ever speak on this topic. However, the Global civil war between supporters of the unlimited expansion of the state and supporters of its limitation affects even little Montenegro, so it is worth dedicating at least one post to this.

Statists use a specific vulnerability of economic theory to political pressure—externalities—to attack personal freedom. Anyone can become a carrier of a virus and infect others, meaning that by their very presence, they potentially represent a significant negative externality for those around them. And while attempts to restrict human freedom under the pretext that people breathe and emit terrible carbon dioxide, which will soon boil the Earth, meet with serious misunderstanding, it turned out to be noticeably easier to frighten people with a deadly and immediate danger, rather than one decades away.

In Montenegro, society is holding its defense quite steadfastly. It is helped by serious disagreements between the president and the prime minister, which prevent truly unpopular decisions from being made. But it is hindered by pressure from the European Union, on which loans and the flow of tourists bringing money into the country depend. Therefore, the state advances very cautiously and immediately takes a step back upon encountering serious resistance. This provides the EU with the necessary image: that we tried, but these obscurantists started blocking roads, and we had to find a compromise. For example, in the autumn there was an attempt to gradually make entry to large supermarkets available only by certificate, but after a couple of weeks, all restrictions were cancelled. Closer to winter, they promised to require certificates for entry to Christmas markets, but a couple of weeks later, they conversely announced relaxations: practically all restrictions are lifted during the Christmas holidays, celebrate to your heart’s content. Naturally, society has to fight for every relaxation through street actions.

In Russia, everything is much worse. Society was almost completely paved over last winter; no one is surprised by imprisonments for single-person pickets, social media posts, and other arbitrariness, about which most of my readers have a much more direct understanding, so I will not dwell on it. However, it seems that the attempt, at the end of the second year of the war for public health, to introduce a permit system for movement has nonetheless encountered fairly widespread grassroots resistance.

The Libertarian Party of Russia (the one of the two that the state seemingly hasn’t completely crushed) has announced the launch of a public campaign against QR-codification. I have read the list of proposals, and they look reasonably sound. As is usual in the RF, the level of support for an initiative is determined primarily by the number of signatures on change.org, so the first thing to do is go there and sign, and then figure out how else the campaign can be helped.

And, of course, we welcome everyone who cannot bear this entire frontline atmosphere to cozy, damp, and rainy Montenegro. At least the borders are still open.

Harsh coercive measures have failed again

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Considering the concept of harm reduction, I have already shown why the best result is achieved not through prohibition and accusation, but through awareness and attempts to encourage a person toward less risky behavior. For example, the needle exchange program during the AIDS crisis in the 80s, which allowed drug users to take fewer risks by using fresh syringes instead of the same ones repeatedly and sharing them among several people, proved to be much more effective than strict prohibitions. Program participants began to use drugs less frequently, their health improved, and many of them eventually voluntarily sought help for addiction treatment.

Similarly, awareness and encouraging people toward less risky behavior could have been used instead of harsh coercive measures in the fight against coronavirus. Unfortunately, most governments chose the second method. However, it is good that not all of them decided to resort to force and strict prohibitions, so we can easily compare the results of these approaches. Research on the impact of strict measures, light measures, and all measures combined on the growth of infections has already long shown that both types of measures produce approximately the same effect. This means that the introduction of harsh coercive measures is unnecessary, or even harmful, given their consequences for social and economic life.

Sweden is a good example. From the very beginning of the pandemic, it refused to introduce harsh and coercive measures within its country; even the wearing of masks, which was mandatory almost worldwide, remained only recommendatory in Sweden. Initially, the number of infections and deaths greatly exceeded the corresponding figures in other countries (though in reality, this was not the case in all instances; for example, they were quite comparable to the figures in France). However, it was already clear then that compared to other countries, Sweden’s economy would suffer less and recover faster after the pandemic. And importantly, the last wave of the pandemic, which put many countries in a critical position, had almost no impact on Sweden. By the way, the inspiration for writing this post was the comparison between the situation in Israel, where people are already being given a third dose of the vaccine, where covid passports are being actively implemented, and where there were multiple lockdowns, and Sweden, where there is and was nothing of the sort. At the same time, in both countries, the vaccination level for the first and second doses is approximately the same, but the situation is fundamentally different.

Slightly stricter measures were introduced in other Scandinavian countries—Denmark and Norway. The governments of these countries, of course, called these measures extremely harsh, but if compared to measures in other countries, they also seem quite mild. It is also worth mentioning an experiment conducted in Norway. Fitness clubs were considered breeding grounds for coronavirus, so they were closed at first. Later, 5 clubs were opened, allowing half of their clients to attend classes and the other half not to. As a result, over two weeks of observation, only one case of illness was registered, although it was in the group attending fitness clubs, but the infected person had not even managed to reach the sports facility. Also, the director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health claims that the country could have gotten by without quarantine and achieved the same results. In general, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have already lifted all restrictive measures (except for border controls) and were the first in Europe to return to the life they had before the pandemic. Other countries are still very far from this.

Thus, we are once again convinced that awareness and encouragement of less risky behavior can achieve at least the same, if not more, than strict prohibitions, control, and force. And in general, a huge price will have to be paid for harsh measures in any case. So what is the point if, in the end, they cause more harm than good?

The Reality of the Viral Threat

Voluntarist

When viruses are considered weapons of mass destruction, many say that this is merely a hypothetical threat, impossible to implement in practice at the moment, unlikely to be implementable in the near future, and certainly never available for recreation by small organizations and ordinary people in home conditions. And since other possible weapons of mass destruction are even more inaccessible for recreation, there is no need to fear such a phenomenon as violence and try to eradicate it completely.

First of all, we need to look at the trends in the development of biotechnology. A great example is provided by an operation such as sequencing (in simpler terms, decoding) the genome. Just 20 years ago, sequencing one full human genome cost 100 million dollars, about 10 years ago – 1 million dollars, and now – 1 thousand dollars. Also, there are already quite cheap DNA/RNA synthesizers; some models can be bought for several tens of thousands of dollars, and it is quite expected that over time and with the development of technology, they will only become cheaper and more accessible. Furthermore, research has recently appeared regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence in solving quantum chemistry equations [1][2]. In the future, this will make it possible to determine the chemical and physical properties of molecules without conducting real tests, but only by virtually modeling their structure. I think it is obvious that this will greatly simplify the design of artificial viruses. And finally, let us not forget that modern vaccination and targeted treatment are based precisely on the introduction of artificial viral agents into humans, which deliver specific genetic material to the required cells and embed it into them. Factually, this is gene therapy, the reality of the technological implementation of which many for some reason also view skeptically and do not see prospects for its development and application in the near future. But do you still believe that the creation of dangerous artificial viruses is merely a hypothetical threat? Well, let’s look at real cases of this.

In 2011, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka conducted experiments to create a flu vaccine. He tried to recreate the strain of the virus that preceded the 2009-2010 epidemic to see how the virus had changed over 4 years. As a result, he modified it so that it became resistant to human immunity [3]. Naturally, his work began to be criticized, as humanity would have been powerless if this virus had left the laboratory walls. Additionally, the US government imposed a ban on the continuation of this research in 2014 (however, it was lifted in 2019). Moreover, Yoshihiro Kawaoka had previously managed to create a laboratory analog of the well-known Spanish flu, which killed up to 100 million people according to various estimates.

Also in 2018, a group of Canadian researchers published a scientific paper on recreating the causative agent of the horsepox virus – a close relative of smallpox (variola), one of the deadliest diseases in human history [4]. The cost of this project is estimated at approximately 100 thousand dollars. In doing so, the researchers sought to create a new, even safer vaccine against smallpox. However, a significant portion of the scientific community viewed this research critically and began to express indignation as to why the scientific journal PLOS One allowed the publication of such work at all, as this could help terrorists in creating biological weapons.

Along with all this, we should consider cases where viruses accidentally left laboratory walls and what consequences this led to, in order to understand what we will face if someone wants to release a dangerous virus into the wild intentionally. Moreover, this could already be done by some laboratory assistant at any research center that stores and studies samples of such viruses. We have simply been very lucky that none of these lab assistants had violent tendencies, or if they did, something held them back or they did not realize what dangerous weapon was in their hands. We will list 5 such cases [5]:

– In 1977, the H1N1 flu strain managed to escape from a Chinese institution and spread across the world. Fortunately, it caused only a mild illness and led to only a few fatal cases.

– From 1963 to 1978, three escapes of the smallpox virus occurred in the UK from two different laboratories. They were linked to low standards and poorly conducted laboratory practice. The smallpox outbreaks led to at least 80 fatal cases.

– In 1995, 10,000 people in Venezuela and 75,000 people in Colombia fell ill with a VEE strain that escaped from a laboratory. As a result of the outbreak, 311 people died, and neurological complications were found in 3,000 people.

– Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 led to a global epidemic that infected 8,000 people and caused 774 deaths in 29 countries. Since the original epidemic, six escapes of the virus from laboratories have occurred – four in Beijing and one each in Singapore and Taiwan.

– In 2007, 278 animals in the UK were infected with foot-and-mouth disease after the virus escaped from a high-biosafety laboratory. Due to the outbreak, 1,578 animals had to be destroyed. This outbreak undermined agricultural production and exports in the UK and cost approximately 200 million pounds sterling.

Let’s also look at the current viral situation. In 2020-21, we had to deal with the coronavirus (by the way, this is one of the strains of the same SARS that left laboratory walls in 2003). Compared to other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is not excessively contagious or deadly; to date, about 103 million people have had it, which is 1.3% of the planet’s population; about 2.2 million people died – 2.1% of all infected. Nevertheless, the pandemic led to a large number of social and economic problems.

We should also look at other modern viral threats besides the coronavirus. One such example could be the “Nipah” virus. The disease can be asymptomatic (in which case the person simply becomes a spreader of the infection) or cause serious respiratory problems, encephalitis, cerebral edema, and mortality ranging from 40% to 75%. Furthermore, Dutch researchers claim that a Nipah outbreak could happen at any moment [6]. And what could happen if a sample of such a virus fell into the hands of a person with violent inclinations?

Besides all this, the topic of the viral threat is already being raised by some well-known and authoritative figures, for example, entrepreneur and billionaire Bill Gates [7]. Back in 2015, he predicted a pandemic and warned that the world was not ready for it. He explains this lack of readiness by the fact that large pandemics occur quite rarely, people forget about them and prefer to concentrate their attention on fighting more frequent disasters. A pandemic generally always seems like something that definitely will not happen in the next few years, therefore its threat is ignored. Bill Gates also expressed concern that viruses could be used for violent purposes and estimated the probability of an artificial pandemic to be higher than that of a natural one. Now let’s imagine such a scenario – someone intentionally releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, and humanity is not ready for it at all?

I think there should be no more doubts that the creation of artificial viruses is a real task, which over time is becoming less expensive and more accessible for implementation. It may even not be necessary to create new viruses – it is enough to seize and use samples of already existing ones. Therefore, it is critically important for us to get rid of violence before the moment when someone, in an attempt to protect themselves from attacks, or some terrorist in pursuit of their violent goals, releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, thereby bringing humanity to catastrophe.

Sources:

1. Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schrödinger equation

2. Ab initio solution of the many-electron Schrödinger equation with deep neural networks

3. Is this wise? Controversial scientist recreates pandemic flu virus that killed 500,000 people… except it’s WORSE

4. Canadian group creates poxvirus, prompting dual-use discussion

5. Here Are 5 Times Infectious Diseases Escaped From Laboratory Containment

6. Pharmaceutical giants not ready for next pandemic, report warns

7. Bill Gates on the global problems of humanity

Contact Tracing: The First Step Toward Universal Real-Time Surveillance

In order to familiarize Russian-speaking libertarians with English-language libertarian discourse, we intend to occasionally post translations of articles from major libertarian websites. Today, we present for your attention an article about contact tracing apps, which have become a challenge to privacy due to the pandemic.

The pandemic provided governments with a pretext to justify the mass collection of geolocation data.

Many academics, entrepreneurs, and governments claim that new technologies are a critical part of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. They argue that by using the latest tracking methods to obtain information, people will be able to easily check whether they have come into contact with identified COVID-19 carriers.

Contact Tracing Apps

Two models for such apps are proposed. The first model involves the collection and processing of a person’s location information by governments. Such proposals were met with a barrage of criticism from privacy and consumer rights groups, as they involve unprecedented total surveillance. Given that many tech companies already provide such services to their governments—YouTube, for example, blocks any information contradicting WHO statements—these fears seem quite real.

The second model is the collection and processing of information about movements and contacts directly on users’ devices. This decentralized form of data collection has received broad academic support because, in theory, it would allow for contact tracing without giving companies and governments real-time access to data on citizens’ movements and habits.

But even this decentralized data collection scheme raises many questions. Even with the development of a legal framework for privacy protection—which currently simply does not exist—the level of public awareness regarding information protection makes these apps extremely dangerous.

In this article, we will examine how contact tracing apps are developed and why they pose a threat.

Centralization or Decentralization?

Let us first note that some contact tracing apps implemented by governments outside Europe and the US are a serious problem. The Israeli government recently passed a law giving its security services the right to access the personal data of all users, as well as allowing the centralized storage of the obtained information. South Korea and China have done the same.

The danger of involving governments in the collection of such data is noted by many personal data protection organizations in Europe and the US. Despite this, the governments of these countries believe that such apps are necessary, also because these governments themselves were unable to develop contact tracing apps on their own.

It is intended that contact tracing apps will be developed according to a decentralized model. In theory, the user’s phone will store data about contacts with COVID-19 owners itself and exchange data with other devices. Information will not be transmitted to centralized cloud storage, and even the companies developing the apps will not have access to users’ personal data or their location.

This model was proposed by companies such as Apple and Google, the PACT project from MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], and many European groups. Most proposals include Bluetooth technology, which will notify the user if there is another user nearby who has been in contact with the virus.

(Missing) Legal Framework

At first glance, apps with a decentralized data collection model are flawless in protecting users from surveillance. They are built on a policy of individual responsibility, comparable to the policy of the Swedish government, which proved its effectiveness despite non-interference in the private lives of citizens.

However, two unresolved problems remain with decentralized contact tracing apps. First, there is currently no legal framework to protect users of these apps from surveillance. Second, even if such a framework were created, any data from smartphones could be stolen by hackers or security services.

To start, let’s consider the legal aspect of the issue. In our article on the legality of such apps, we already pointed out that the lawfulness of such a form of mass surveillance is questionable at best. With the increasing instances of internet censorship, there is a possibility that governments will use such apps to create databases of users and track them.

But the questions related to contact tracing apps—centralized or not—are much deeper. It is unclear even if these apps will fulfill their original function. For these apps to be effective, people would need to be required to install and use them. Otherwise, an infected user could simply delete the app, which undermines the effectiveness of the entire system. Giving governments the right to impose the use of a specific app on citizens would be an unprecedented and extremely dangerous step.

Privacy and Security

Even with the most thoughtfully designed legal framework for such apps, even if it truly protects the user’s personal data, these apps will still pose a threat. Companies are making great efforts to increase cybersecurity, especially now that many are working remotely, and are surprised to find that their employees know very little or nothing at all about cybersecurity. This means that any data obtained through contact tracing apps—even if stored on the user’s smartphone—is very vulnerable.

And this circumstance, of course, is taken into account by existing data privacy legislation. The European GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation]—widely accepted as the gold standard when it comes to data protection—unequivocally states that data privacy cannot be achieved without information security. This is intended to be achieved through a simple rule: companies cannot collect data they do not need. In other words, the best thing that can be done for the safety of user data is not to collect it at all.

In the context of contact tracing, this means that even if user data on contacts and location is stored on the user’s smartphone—rather than in a centralized accounting system—no one guarantees its safety. This data can be stolen, or national security and surveillance services may gain access to it. Research also proves that even when users try to secure their data, their attempts may only undermine their information security.

On the other hand, a counterargument naturally arises that many apps already collect geolocation data and one more app cannot become critical for privacy. However, the most important difference of such new apps is that they collect data about the user’s contacts. This data could be used by law enforcement agencies to obtain information about citizens’ movements in real time.

The Future

There is no need to pretend that these are new problems that we have never encountered. Activists , defending privacy, have been talking about the illegitimacy of mass surveillance for over ten years. The pandemic only gave governments a pretext to justify the mass collection of geolocation data. As we have already pointed out, there are currently no technologies capable of collecting this data without violating the fundamental human right to privacy. There are no legal acts that regulate the use of contact tracing apps. Even if there were, the insecurity of data on most smartphones makes this data extremely vulnerable to theft or legal requests from law enforcement agencies.

It is important that later, after the pandemic, we remember the lessons of the present. We must, of course, rebuild our economic policy, which made the world so vulnerable to COVID-19. But we must also use this opportunity to challenge the level of surveillance that has become possible in our new digital world.

It all comes down to the fact that we must make technology serve those who use it, rather than as a tool for building a “surveillance economy” that is so rapidly enslaving our society. And resistance to tracking apps is only the beginning of this struggle.

Original text: Sia Mohajer, Contact Tracing: Laying the Foundation for Real-Time Social Tracking, June 1, 2020, FEE Foundation for Economic Education

Freedom and Security

In the video about coronavirus and the state, I pointed out that the main danger of the epidemic is not in the deaths, nor even in the fact that the state, under the guise of security, is encroaching on freedoms—but in the fact that this encroachment will be welcomed, and after the epidemic ends, many of the introduced restrictions will remain.

And indeed. Mikhail Svetov likes a post stating that in Miami, not a single murder occurred during seven weeks of isolation. Mikhail Pozharsky writes an article about what cannibals the Swedish socialists are for starving their elderly with COVID. And literally almost everyone snorts with disapproval at anyone who admits they are not following the ban on walks or other excursions from home unless for an urgent need.

Yes, if everyone is locked in their homes, there will be fewer killings in the streets. There will be more killings at home. If people are not allowed to go to work, they will not die of pneumonia. They will die of hunger. Any restrictions introduced by the state to save lives have a price, which is expressed not only in money, but in those same lives.

I sincerely hope that the Swedes hold their ground and ultimately do not trade freedom for security. And I also sincerely hope that when all this is over and we count the excess mortality among the Swedes and their neighbors, it turns out that by choosing freedom, the Swedes won not only money, but also lives, and the praised security provided by the state actually meant not only the destruction of the economy but even more deaths. If this turns out to be the lesson for humanity, I will be happy. But even if it turns out that freedom means an increased risk of death, it is still no reason to abandon it. Otherwise, what is the point of it all?

Coronavirus and the State

A new video has been released on the Libertarian Band channel — about how an old ailment called the state, which humanity simply cannot seem to cure, has led to serious complications in combination with a new viral infection. Not that we are particularly fresh or original; too many have already spoken on this topic. But it is always useful to record your position, otherwise, people might rub it in your face later: “remember, remember how you were calling to beg for money from the state last year? well, now enjoy your hyperinflation!”

This is a special episode that interrupted our series of educational videos on libertarianism, but we will return to the main sequence closer to May.

Speculation during an emergency

A few days ago, the New York police arrested Baruch Feldheim, who had pre-emptively bought up 192,000 masks and 600,000 gloves (and many other goodies) to later sell them to medical professionals and ordinary citizens with a massive markup (around 700%).
How would anarcho-capitalism deal with such speculation during emergencies?
On one hand, he acted exclusively through market methods and sought to maximize profit; on the other, his actions could very well have cost someone their life.

Slava Mahorkin

So, imagine it is the era of ancap; everything is calm in New York, while there is some local epidemic in China. No one cares about it, no one is panic-buying masks and gloves, no one is closing borders, and at the hour destined by fate, the epidemic breaks out in New York. Suddenly, everyone rushes for PPE, instantly clearing out the small warehouse stocks, and collapse ensues. Later, of course, everything will resolve itself—supplies will be brought in from where there is no epidemic, production will be expanded, and so on. But at first, there will be chaos.

Now let’s consider another scenario. There is some local epidemic in China, no one cares about it, but the vigilant Baruch Feldheim is already buying up masks and gloves. Pharmacies face increased demand, order more, and just in case, raise prices by about ten percent. Blogs write about the price hikes, linking them to the distant Chinese epidemic, and now other anxious people start flocking to pharmacies, just in case. As a result of the increased demand, PPE production begins to increase long before the epidemic reaches the USA. Consequently, when it does happen, it is met fully prepared: output has increased, warehouses are full, and everyone who wanted to protect themselves can do so. Riding the wave of hype even before the arrival of the epidemic, Baruch Feldheim sells most of his stocks at double the price, making a good profit, and keeps the rest for personal use or to sell even higher if the occasion arises.

And finally, let’s consider a third scenario. There is some local epidemic in China, no one cares about it, but the vigilant Baruch Feldheim is already buying up masks and gloves. Pharmacies face increased demand, order more, and just in case, raise prices by about ten percent. Blogs write about the price hikes, linking them to the distant Chinese epidemic, and now other anxious people start flocking to pharmacies, just in case. Meanwhile, the epidemic in China is localized and fizzles out. The vigilant citizens find themselves sitting on a pile of junk, pharmacies are overstocked, PPE prices drop, and gradually the unlucky entrepreneurs sell off their illiquid remains, recording small losses or even breaking even if they manage to maneuver skillfully.

Speculation is an attempt to earn money by predicting the future. If the speculation succeeds, the future turns out better for both the speculator and those who bought from him. If it fails, it is the speculator’s problem. But if a society develops a habit of punishing the speculator for his success, then the second and third scenarios described above will be closed off to him. No one looks to the future; everyone looks warily at their neighbors, fearing they might provoke envy and get punched in the face.

Yesterday I wrote about Somalia and mentioned a lecture by Vladimir Zolotorev, where he talks about Somali law. Capitalism did not happen there precisely because any personal success is considered accidental luck, and its fruits must be shared with the clan. The same nonsense reigned in Melanesia and among North American Indians with their potlatch culture; the same thing happens in today’s USA, although, it would seem, Indians have long since stopped living on Manhattan.

Raider carrying away the loot

What to spin state bans on

As I wrote recently, a wave of criticism regarding its inefficiency in fighting the pandemic awaits the state in the near future. However, it is precisely in Russia that the state acts in such a peculiar way that it receives a barrage of criticism in a slightly different key. The Russian state is enthusiastically helping the infection spread as widely as possible, while with equal enthusiasm bankrupting its poorest inhabitants and helping the wealthiest with money. In short, everything is as usual, but in an especially exaggerated form.

I heard a good selection of grievances against the state from Alexander Tatarkov. He is a rather original anarchist with an interesting and quite constructive view of the world (one major flaw: he is excessively talkative—listening to hour-long monologues is often an excessive luxury for me). What is interesting about this video is that these are practical grievances from the perspective of an ordinary citizen—this can be effectively replicated in conversations with those very same citizens, and they will nod in agreement and throw in just as many more examples, so it is useful to master this style of rhetoric.

Alexander is particularly irritated, of course, by the actions of the cops, as the most harmful and senseless. All these precinct officers walking door-to-door, picking on drivers of private cars—though it’s hard to imagine a place more epidemically safe—harassing pedestrians with idiotic demands to prove their right to be on the street, and so on. After listening to these grievances, Bitarch, by the way, immediately put forward his constructive proposal, suggesting sending the security forces into quarantine—this is done by simple methods of telephone terrorism, only instead of a mined object, a specific police officer with such-and-such a badge number is used, and as the means of mining—an infected citizen.

While Alexander complained about the direct harm from the state, it didn’t bother me that much, but then he mentioned that the fashion for masks sharply reduces the danger during, for example, robberies, and this is far more unpleasant for ancap ideology. Therefore, I would like to separately address everyone who will be driven to poverty and despair by the state’s actions in the coming weeks. If you decide to commit thefts or robbery—please rob the state. Firstly, it is more ethical, since the state has no legitimate property and cannot have any. Secondly, it is safer, because no one will protect state junk that desperately. Thirdly, government employees are far more likely to be sitting at home and therefore will not suffer in any way during the robbery. Fourthly, if you are caught, public opinion will be far more favorable toward you than if you had robbed your fellow sufferers.

However, I would prefer that it not come to this, and the only thing that can prevent such a catastrophic scenario is the blatant violation of the self-isolation regime by citizens. As in, dear state, since you do not intend to compensate us in any way for the ban on working, we don’t care about your ban. Since Putin suddenly remembered that Russia is a federation and announced that specific measures to fight citizens should be introduced by regional heads, there will surely be more sane governors who will either manage to carve out funds from their meager budgets to encourage people to stay home, or try to let any measures that kill the economy of their domains slide as much as possible and turn a blind eye to the fact that citizens continue to earn money. And good practices tend to be borrowed if they receive positive reinforcement. So it is worth encouraging your mayors and governors with a kind word if the comparison with neighboring incompetents truly looks in their favor, and it also makes sense to remember more severe instruments of pressure.

No one but ourselves will find the balance of freedom and security that is most suitable for us. We shall seek it.