Тег: Crimea

What are the main goals that ancap sets for foreign policy? And what will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism?

anonymous question

One could answer briefly by stating that within the framework of ancap, there is no foreign policy, since this term refers to interstate relations, and there are no states under ancap. But let’s expand the answer a bit: of course, I’m not paid by the character, but I simply don’t want to release entirely meager texts in separate posts.

What could be likened to foreign policy for ancap? I suppose, relations with entities that are territorially distant, different in culture, type of economic activity, everyday habits, and perhaps even not entirely ancaps. And what are the main goals ancap sets in such a “foreign policy”? Naturally, to ensure freedom of trade with them.

If I find out that somewhere in the depths of the southeast there is the unforgettable smelly durian fruit, I want to be able to buy it. If not in a supermarket in the next block, then at least to visit the durian myself. The people who grow this curious fruit are needed so that I can try it, and as for what the structure of the commodity-money transactions that reunite me with the durian will be—the market knows best.

What will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism? The same freedom of trade. The famous international festival KaZantip will return there. Girls in bright swimsuits will flock to the Crimean sea, slender speleologists will flock to Crimean caves, tasters saturated with Georgia will flock to Crimean wine cellars, and the long-awaited Dnipro water will return to Crimean fields at market rates.

Beautiful! How could one not visit such a place?

What happened with Crimea in March 2014—is it legal or illegal, good or bad?

anonymous question

What happened to Crimea in March 2014 was the seizure by one state of part of the territory of another state. Theoretically, such a seizure can lead to either a benefit or, conversely, a loss for the residents of the seized territory. Off the top of my head, I can recall only one precedent where the residents of a territory severed from another state now live wealthier and freer than the residents of the state from which the territory was severed. This refers to Texas, severed from Mexico. As for the territories that the Soviet Union took from its neighbors, all of them now live poorer than the countries from which the territories were severed. Moldova is poorer than Romania, the Kaliningrad region is poorer than Germany, Karelia is poorer than Finland… So history is not on the side of the residents of Crimea, although it is still too early to assess all the consequences of the reconfiguration of state borders for Crimeans.

However, there are also, imagine that, the residents of the Russian Federation itself, and the annexation of Crimea has already made them noticeably poorer, and there are no prospects for a reversal of this process.

Please note that in my analysis I absolutely do not touch upon international law and other interstate complications, because the problems of bandits don’t fuck honest people and shouldn’t. If Russia were minarchist, and the Crimeans had asked to move from socialist Ukraine to a freer Russian jurisdiction, I would have warmly welcomed the Crimeans’ decision—provided, of course, that they were ready to pay for the services they purchased—while the Ukrainian government’s attempts to refer to the sacred right to personally rob its serfs would have been met with a contemptuous “pffft.” But in our case, we are talking about two equally wretched bandits, and I can only hope that they both drop dead, choking on Crimea.

So you look at it—and you wouldn’t say it’s a disaster zone

I hope the answer was unconventional enough; honestly, I’m tired of all the legalists jumping around with papers about what one bandit once promised another bandit. I will gladly accept a reward in unconventional currency to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8