Тег: Deregulation

Can a free market rid us of oligarchs?

It is highly likely that you have frequently encountered the question of oligarchic growth and capital accumulation. It may also have arisen the question of whether this problem could be solved with decentralization and deregulation of the market. Of course, we immediately note that no one can offer a miraculous and magical solution to all of humanity’s problems. But let’s still look at how a free market and genuine competition can ease – if not completely solve – this long-standing disease of the economy.

The essence of oligarchy is simple – capital attracts capital. Money begets money, as they say. The richer you become, the easier it becomes to get even richer. Eventually, all large business begins to resemble a closed club where entry for an ordinary person is forbidden. Many may now find this clear – it’s necessary to strictly regulate the activities of the wealthy and take away part of their funds. But if you dig deeper, state regulations often help them more. They not only do not fight against oligarchy but also create favorable conditions for its flourishing. Why? Because large companies have the resources to hire an army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists who skillfully circumvent all barriers. Meanwhile, small entrepreneurs drown in bureaucratic jungles.

So why can deregulation help? Imagine: a market is a vast ocean. State regulations are artificial obstacles, reefs and islands around which it’s convenient to build personal kingdoms. If they were removed, the vast ocean would become much harder to divide into cozy “corners.” Free competition is like a storm that constantly breaks up any monopolies and prevents them from consolidating. To compete – means to live, to stand still – to drown. Remember how the internet destroyed traditional monopolies: taxi services, media, retail. New players emerged – Uber, YouTube, Amazon – and turned everything upside down. Yes, now they are new giants, but they appeared precisely because old regulations did not keep pace with technology.

Decentralization is another tool for protection against oligarchy, a new level. This is not just the cancellation of rules, but the transfer of control over resources and assets from a group of “chosen” people to the hands of many market participants. Recall cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Their main idea: to replace centralized control with transparent rules that cannot be changed for someone specific. As a result, a system is built in which no participant can gain an advantage simply by virtue of their position or connections in government. Decentralization destroys the very ground for oligarchy. It’s impossible to build an empire on control over something that doesn’t belong to anyone.

But this is not a perfect pill – a free market and decentralization are not an absolute cure for greed and dishonesty. Some people will continue to try to create cartels, conspiracies, and fraudulent schemes. But without state patronage, without bureaucratic “quiet harbors,” it will be much harder for them.

Let’s wrap it up: yes, deregulation and decentralization aren’t perfect. But they definitely deprive the oligarchy of its main trump card – state support. They don’t just treat symptoms; they eliminate the very source of the disease. A free market is a continuous battle of ideas, products, and talent, where no one can rest on their laurels. Of course, the decision is yours – what to choose. In any case, it’s more interesting to live in a world where everyone has a chance to win, not just those sitting closer to the state trough.

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Who benefits from regulations and what threat they may lead to

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Who is always the first to demand the introduction of new taxes? And who demands the introduction of new laws regarding the regulation of the economy and the market? Etatists will say that ordinary citizens are primarily interested in this for the sake of protecting their interests, ensuring security, and providing social benefits. But such an answer would be foolish, because the correct answer is large corporations, which are literally “in bed” with the state.

Why did Jeff Bezos—founder of Amazon, a company that writes off its profits as expenses to avoid paying taxes—support the increase of corporate taxes in the USA? To any sane person, it will be obvious that this is necessary to eliminate competitors in the market. But that is an old story; there is a more current example—well-known corporations and billionaires, such as Elon Musk and Microsoft, are actively calling for the regulation and limitation of the development of Artificial Intelligence. All of this, of course, they justify by the alleged need to ensure safety, since AI is so far a technology that is not fully understood, including in terms of risks. But such words sound like a fabricated excuse; moreover, why would major market players limit a technology upon which they can make money? Obviously, the point is to prevent private developments in the field of AI from entering the market; many small companies simply will not be able to afford the regulations, whereas large corporations will easily handle them. It is especially worth noting that those calling for the regulation of this field are themselves extremely active in its development.

The drive toward market monopolization is clear, as are the results of this process. Due to the lack of competition, everyone will only become poorer, and technological progress will be stunted. But the problem is not only this; there is a far more terrifying scenario. If AI technology truly carries some danger, then it would be extremely foolish to try to limit it, especially in developed Western societies where law-abiding citizens, who do not seek to harm anyone, will indeed follow the regulations. However, those who wish to use AI to cause harm will not follow the regulations. This applies to government authorities and their various structures. And it especially applies to those structures that are not under the control of Western jurisdictions at all. Some hackers from North Korea, already famous for hacking and stealing funds from crypto exchanges, persecuting people, and attempting to breach the defense networks of other countries, spit on Western bans; they will actively develop and use AI to cause harm to others. And military structures everywhere will certainly use AI, and even if the West bans its own military from doing so (and even that is a doubtful scenario, as the military usually has a completely free hand in such matters), jurisdictions hostile to the West will engage in it. In the end, only the civilian sector and the development of AI tools that could be used to counter AI threats will suffer from the bans and regulations.

The ability of large corporations and monopolists linked to the state to promote favorable regulations through it not only harms everyone economically, but can also jeopardize the very security for which all of this is allegedly being done. And will anyone still justify the very existence of stationary bandits and their ability to impose bans on everyone after this?

A question regarding medications for rare diseases.

What guarantees are there that under ancap, people with rare diseases (affecting fewer than 200,000 people) will not be left without medication because it would simply be unprofitable to develop and sell them (given such a small number of consumers)?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

The strangest question I have ever encountered. And why is it profitable for states to fund scientists who conduct such research? Perhaps because funding scientists is profitable in general? They make useful discoveries, and over the last 100 years, these have become increasingly frequent, useful, and interesting.

A company that develops a new drug gains notoriety. This is currently the best advertisement a pharmaceutical company can imagine. One could hire a hundred PR agents to write that this company’s vitamin C and plantain are the best in the world. But many people sell vitamin C and herbal mixtures. So, most of the time, PR agents would be producing information junk. Instead, one could hire another dozen scientists to develop a drug for a rare disease. Journalists from many publications would gather to see and report on the discovery, the company’s name would hit the top news of all websites for a couple of days, and remain in the top of specialized publications for another month. In addition to that rare pill, the company produces hundreds of other less rare ones. A discovery means new clients, the respect of doctors, and the attention of their patients.

Regarding sales: selling medications is always profitable. Just as it was profitable in primitive society, when a hunter brought the shaman the best piece of meat for a pot of magic potion, so it is in a post-industrial society, where hundreds of pharmaceutical companies make aspirin and millions of pharmacies sell it. Perhaps it would be unprofitable to keep a rare medicine in a pharmacy, but nothing stops it from being ordered. Currently, restrictions on the online sale of medications are created by states.

The role of the state in the production of drugs for rare diseases is not very obvious. In funding scientists? They can be funded by charitable foundations and insurance companies. It is always profitable for an insurer for their patient to be healthy and pay premiums regularly, rather than lying on their deathbed.

By the way, the famous EU Directive 141/2000 (reduction of regulations in the development of orphan drugs) was adopted precisely thanks to private initiative, and not at the suggestion of any state. EURORDIS, an association supporting patients with rare diseases, was one of the organizations that contributed to the development and adoption of such an initiative.

Very rare pills

And how will it be with selling heroin to children under ancap? It won’t be possible to ban it. As I understand it, it’s the reputation institute. An asshole sells heroin to children, fewer and fewer people will turn to him, and in the end, he will have to change his trading policy or close down. Do I understand correctly?

anonymous question

It’s even more interesting. Not only will it be impossible to ban it, but the institution of reputation will also fail to work.

Judge for yourself: you have two businesses, both bring in money, but those who find out that you have one business refuse to do business with you in your second business for some of their own ethical reasons. For example, you have a vegan restaurant and a steakhouse, and the vegans have stopped liking you, accusing you of hypocrisy. The meat-eaters generally don’t care what you sell to the vegans. What do you do? You simply hide the existence of the steakhouse and remain a respectable owner of a vegan restaurant in the eyes of society. And the steakhouse is owned by a “front man.”

The exact same thing happens with selling drugs to children and adults. If one business interferes with another, it is simply separated so that you are not associated with it. Moreover, if it turns out that parents forbid children from buying your heroin with their pocket money, you can always switch to the “dead drop” scheme, which works perfectly today under conditions of a total government ban on the circulation of psychoactive substances.

In other words: the stick method does not work, no matter how you try to optimize it.

We cannot predict in detail what the structure of supply and demand will be in a free market, but if a certain product, despite all its positive qualities, has a lot of various unpleasant side effects, then a demand arises for the same thing, but without the side effects. Once the desired substance can be obtained at a comparable price, the old one will have to leave the market. I think this is precisely the fate that awaits heroin in the end, and after that, it will no longer matter whether what replaces it is sold to children or adults — it will be something as socially acceptable as, for example, ice cream.

But for market forces to work successfully in the desired direction, they must not be hindered by various absurd bans. Because right now, in the field of psychoactive substances, not only distribution but also research is illegal.

And finally, I would like to note that with full deregulation of the industry, the problem of the spread of harmful habits among vulnerable categories of the population will be completely insignificant, even without any significant innovations. I suggest looking at Portugal’s experience with the decriminalization of drugs. It had many positive consequences, including a sharp decline in adolescent drug addiction that continues to this day. So, I appreciate your concern for children, but really, there would be nothing to worry about in this case.

decriminalization of ice cream

Psychos and Guns

Following up on the last post about the legalization of weapons. A topical issue: what about mentally unstable people who own weapons? Won’t legalization trigger mass shootings and such? What about road rage, when firearms instead of fists will be used?

anonymous question

As the practice of mass shootings in the States shows, they are often committed by mentally unstable people for whom this fact was recorded long ago, but it did not prevent them from acquiring a gun, despite the fact that a background check is supposedly required.

So, after the deregulation of weapon acquisition, the situation with mentally unstable people will not get worse. However, law-abiding citizens focused strictly on self-defense will have noticeably more guns in percentage terms. And the more criminogenic the situation was before deregulation, the greater the incentives will be to acquire self-defense weapons. Accordingly, the curve of armed crime will decline more sharply.

As for road rage, practice shows that the best prevention is liability insurance. There is no point in being rude to someone who doesn’t owe you money when you know that the money won’t come out of your own pocket.

A pistol and a glue gun are simply two different tools

How do libertarians view urbanism? It is clear that they do so differently, but are there any common points? I have heard much negativity from members of the LPR towards the projects of Varlamov and Katz.

anonymous question

Mainstream urbanism is a concept according to which cities should be developed using methods of centralized planning, but this planning should be carried out not by some lobbyists, but by experts based on current scientific research. Urbanists are hardly bothered by the fact that present-day scientific developments may contradict those of the past. After all, it is a quite common occurrence when every subsequent electrician who comes to fix the wiring first asks into the void which idiot did the wiring before him.

Naturally, libertarians can conceptually approve only urbanism based on economic theory—in other words, on the idea that the market should not be hindered from solving truly complex issues, such as ensuring spontaneous order in a large city, which is precisely what it is best at.
Thus, libertarian urbanism is the maximum privatization of all public spaces in the city and the maximum deregulation of interaction between the owners of urban spaces.

Supporting preferred initiatives through voluntary donations is precisely an example of spontaneous order at work, where those projects that best satisfy the desires of consumers flourish. You know what to do:  1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

When libertarians come to power, will they immediately legalize sex with children and the sale of heroin?

Anonymous question

If we are considering the scenario where “libertarians come to power,” then the following picture emerges: in a more or less liberal state, a government has appeared through more or less democratic means that declares its goal to be the transition to a minarchist state.

It is difficult to say what such a government would do immediately and what it would do later. It is clear that reforms must be carried out as quickly as possible, but the speed will largely be determined by the level of trust granted to this minarchist government.

Since this trust is not absolute, it is important not to waste it on insignificant things, as someone like Yushchenko did after the Orange Revolution.

I would start with the following measures:

  • immediate decriminalization of the use and possession of all drugs, decriminalization of the sale of soft drugs, and the rehabilitation of all those convicted under the decriminalized articles. This would significantly reduce the burden on prisons, police, investigators, and courts, but would not give my opponents any serious leverage, as the decriminalization of soft drugs is a global trend approved by the UN.
  • dissolution of all organizations ending in “-nadzor” (oversight agencies).
  • abolition of a host of insignificant but administratively complex taxes and fees: transport tax, state duties, Platon, property tax, and all export and import duties.
  • immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.

And if my government manages not only to pull all this off quickly but also to remain in power, then it will be possible to deal with less urgent matters, such as abolishing the age of consent and decriminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but this would still be a lower priority than, for example, the abolition of VAT, judicial reform, and many other things.

Now, if we are talking not about a minarchist government, but about an evolutionary transition to ancap, bypassing the minarchism stage, then the term “come to power” is simply incorrect.