If it is unclear where exactly you are admitting it – here is the chat dialogue:
Purple Dragon: @ancapsan, I wonder, if Bitarch actually invents his libertarian vaccine, tests it, and gets approval from independent doctors, would you get vaccinated?
Ancap-chan: It’s important to understand exactly what changes will occur in the body and decide based on the specifics. If the effect is exactly as Bitarch dreams—which I don’t believe in, because genetics doesn’t seem to work that way—then why not? It wouldn’t affect self-defense capabilities, and if I needed to take violent revenge, I would still prefer to hire a specialist rather than act myself.
At first I thought about joking it off, but I think I’ll answer seriously.
The subject of my main disagreement with Bitarch is my dislike of operating with holistic constructs. I prefer to consider not violence as a phenomenon, but violence that one specific subject manifests toward another specific subject. And only then do I view this specific violence in the context of libertarian ideology, which proclaims freedom as its value. And this very freedom means that I reserve the right, among other things, to revenge, if I so wish. Naturally, I also leave others the right to try to stop me and hold me accountable.
My own moral views, which may prompt me to enter into a conflict, including a violent one, are higher for me than an abstract desire to have a world completely devoid of aggressive violence. Attempts to manipulate me in the spirit of “as long as violence remains in the world, humanity is in danger” might lead only to a shrug: “then let it remain in danger.” I would perhaps even sharpen the thesis. If we assume there is a button that, when pressed, destroys humanity, I would want to have it. Not to press it, but to know that I can do it. This is a very important incentive for a person—the expansion of possibilities, that is, degrees of freedom. Freedom.
And it is all the more important for me to have the ability to respond to violence against me, both directly at the moment of attack and ex post facto, if that is more convenient for me. I will not voluntarily destroy in myself the capacity for such a thing. So please forgive me, in the dialogue quoted above, I lied.
At the same time, I deeply appreciate Bitarch’s research with the Voluntarist regarding the investigation of mechanisms that influence people’s attitudes toward the manifestation of violence. Moreover, I respect Bitarch’s striving to obtain a button that eradicates the inclination toward aggressive violence in humanity. After all, how is this worse than the desire to have a button to destroy humanity? True, he craves this button in order to press it, and that changes the situation slightly: perhaps I will still have to stop him, as they stop mad scientists in classic action movies. Well, that would be interesting.
For clarity, I would perhaps add one more word to it: “openly and with impunity”, but this is, in essence, simply a clarification of the term “opportunity”.
But this is a general definition that allows one to understand the degree of a person’s freedom in any society, even a totalitarian one. However, the question concerned ancap specifically. And in ancap, there is an important limitation on freedom called the non-aggression principle:
No one has the right to initiate violence with impunity
NAP formulation by Ancap-chan
Thus, the definition of freedom for ancap can be reformulated as follows:
Freedom within ancap is the opportunity to openly and with impunity do whatever one wants, except for the initiation of violence, even if someone else dislikes it.
It remains to clarify that from the perspective of ancap, violence is interpreted as unauthorized damage to property.
Of course, property boundaries, as well as the boundaries of acceptable property damage, can only be defined with some finite precision in any society. Therefore, interpretations and discrepancies are possible regarding specific manifestations of freedom under ancap. For example, the freedom to listen to music, starting from a certain volume level, turns into the freedom to cause damage to third parties, meaning it goes beyond the scope of freedom under ancap. At the same time, determining a threshold volume level in advance is pointless; the clarification of the current boundaries of freedom occurs through the resolution of emerging conflicts.
The boundaries of the acceptable are the fruit of long conflicts
In my recent article on ideological diversity, I talked about how ideas of freedom spread and why this is better than direct missionary work within a single rigid doctrine. Now I would like to look at a related problem: what to do with ideas of un-freedom and their carriers.
Why are ideas of un-freedom attractive?
First, they are relevant to the current state of affairs. Today’s world is far from the ideals of freedom both de jure and de facto. Therefore, the desire to think within a realistic approach and not bother with utopias is quite natural. Understanding that the state was born as a purely bandit formation and then evolved into a modern corporate structure for the purpose of even more effective and stable suppression of the dissatisfied, seizing funds from subjects, and capturing new subjects from neighbors, will in no way help in communicating with state structures. What will help is studying the interconnections between these very structures, both formal and informal, making acquaintances with state functionaries, and other real topics that can bring money, influence, and a decent quality of life.
Second, there are many examples of the collapse of state structures and the transition of a territory to a failed state status—and every time it invariably turns out that the territory turns into a bandit enclave, and freedom in it can only be spoken of as the freedom to rob and kill without fearing retribution from the state, due to its absence. In other words, the state obviously curbs the rampage of private banditry, and therefore should be viewed as a blessing, and these “ideas of freedom” of yours shake the foundations, so please pay a fine for extremism and be thankful you aren’t serving a prison sentence.
The failed state argument: shaken foundations in the background
Third, there is a simple and clear principle: if it works, don’t touch it. Supporters of the status quo will always prefer the current, more or less understood situation, and even if they clearly see the flaws of the system, they will prefer to put up with them rather than choose the uncertainty of the future. If a potential reformer does not have a clear, realistic, step-by-step plan with which the opponent fully agrees at every point, that opponent will always prefer to touch nothing.
How to work with this?
With supporters of living in the real world, everything is quite simple. As soon as they see real-world examples that some free technology effectively handles and withstands the blow of the state, they simply incorporate it into their picture of the real world. For instance, any realist knows for sure that nothing can be blocked on the internet; it is a simple, clear, and easily observable fact. And the realist will themselves laugh at the naive dreamers from some Roskomnadzor, in whose fantasy world adding a resource to the register of blocked resources immediately destroys the corresponding information or service. Similarly, for realists, it is beyond doubt that the state is unable to block Bitcoin transfers, and therefore they logically perceive the complex of anti-money laundering legislation as a set of poorly working spells that should not be taken to heart. So just feed them facts from life, and after some time, they will themselves ridicule the naive etatists who rely in any way on this pathetic seventeenth-century rudiment, the so-called state.
It is also not difficult to find an approach to the adepts of the “don’t touch what works” idea. In general, they are psychologically ready to support a concept such as “everything new is free.” They can be shown how a certain endeavor worked and developed wonderfully after its appearance, and then the state came along and started “fixing” what was working. After that, it usually started working worse. This applies to attempts at state regulation of the internet, the enslavement of the electronic transfer sphere, KYC regimes in banks and exchanges, and all sorts of platform services like Uber—everywhere the principle of “if it works, don’t touch it” was violated specifically by the state. In the same way, it tends to interfere in any voluntary transactions. Finally, one can provide numerous examples of how the state “fixes” already working mechanisms directly related to the functioning of the state. Citizens learned how to achieve a relatively honest vote count in elections—the state changes the election law, making it harder for citizens to control falsifications. A danger arises that a district might go to the opposition—the state engages in gerrymandering or removes the opponent from the election. In short, the state itself so actively violates the principle of not fixing what works that suggesting one should not touch the state because it works turns out to be, at the very least, inconsistent.
All that remains is to deal with the failed state argument. Here, the main counterargument is that this state arises not because people strove for ancap. A failed state always arises after a dictatorship. If the dictatorship ignored reality, made external and internal enemies, and accumulated critical vulnerabilities in the system, then eventually the state broke, leaving citizens poor, fragmented, and incompetent in matters of peaceful cooperation. This created the failed state situation, where people trust only the strongest social ties, the crudest arguments, such as the threat of weapons, and the shortest-term strategies, since under conditions of strong uncertainty, there is no point in long-term planning.
Accordingly, if citizens are already learning to trust weak social ties, plan for the long term without including state handouts in their plans, and do not base their wealth strategies on robbery—then the more of them there are, the less likely a failed state will appear when the next dictatorship collapses. A number of countries that failed to overcome their dictatorship nevertheless did not collapse into a failed state after the dictators died, but began to build something more decent. Spain and Portugal serve as good examples. It turns out that the more actively the supporters of the dictatorship uproot civil society in the country, even if it is disloyal to the dictator, the higher the probability that it will end in a failed state. So they are simply fighting the wrong battle.
With such a civil society, for example, Europe’s penultimate dictatorship is no longer threatened by a failed state
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?
“At Summerhill school, students choose for themselves which lessons to attend. Furthermore, there is no grading system of any kind. No punishment is incurred for skipping classes” (Wikipedia). Can this school be called a kind of libertarian project?
2R
Recently, the left-anarchist channel Prometheus posted an article about anarchism and education, which is, in turn, a summary of an article by Ekaterina Tolkacheva titled A Little Anarchism for the Education System. It discusses Summerhill and many other similar projects specifically as examples of the implementation of a libertarian approach.
From what I quickly googled about Summerhill, it is clear that it is one of the most consistently libertarian educational projects, where a child’s freedom is limited only by the fact that they are physically in a boarding school, but otherwise engage in whatever they please. As far as can be judged from the excerpts I found from the book “Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing” by the school’s founder A.S. Neill, the earlier a child entered the school, the more eagerness they showed for activities: children infected by compulsory education needed time to regain their taste for learning.
Graduates of the school usually turned out to be people with an entrepreneurial streak, or geeks whom no one hindered from pursuing only what they enjoyed, and they continued to specialize in this in their adult lives. At the same time, no absolute geniuses graduated from the school: whether this is a characteristic of the educational methodology, or whether the modest number of students—no more than a hundred children of all ages—played a role.
Thus, I can suggest that this school was far ahead of its time: in the industrial era, a different type of graduate was in demand, but now it is precisely such people who are mainly needed. Ekaterina Schulmann discusses this, for example, in an interview with the publication “Takie Dela”. She describes the problems of the modern Russian school in light of changing trends in society—but does not provide recipes, because she does not know them. However, one of the recipes is boarding schools like Summerhill. Perhaps this is even better than homeschooling, because parents’ pedagogical abilities can be modest.
The main drawback of Summerhill is that such education cannot be mass-market. Therefore, the only real alternative to modern compulsory secondary education is simply the total abolition of its compulsory nature. In modern society, a person has an incredibly long childhood. During this time, the minimally necessary skills for further adult life are acquired even from aimless surfing on the internet, simple housework, and communicating with friends. Those who desire more will find extremely motivated teachers in various “Summerhills.” And for those who cannot afford such things, online courses will remain. The experience of Summerhill shows that when a child is left to their own devices, they eagerly absorb new information; it is enough for them to know that they will obtain their knowledge at the moment they seek it.
Of course, there are many professions for which compliance with strict standards is necessary. In a system of free education, it is sufficient that these standards be known. Those children interested in a profession will know exactly what to achieve, and once they master the required amount of knowledge, they will simply take an open exam. No state regulations are needed for this; professional standards are ultimately dictated by employers.
I think I am cosmopolitan enough not to fixate on the RF: any state is unpleasant in any of its active manifestations. As I have already written, it seems to me that building an ancap society in a country where there is already quite little state and already exists a tradition of respect for private property and entrepreneurial initiative is significantly easier than where none of this exists. Building an ancap society as an immigrant is a more natural pursuit: for immigrants, it is natural to view the state as something incomprehensible and hostile, something to be avoided as much as possible. So, of course, I would like to move to some relatively free country and act there.
As a counterexample to such an approach, people usually cite modern Western feminists who fight for trivialities—in the opinion of many—while being completely unperturbed by the violation of women’s rights in, say, Arab countries. Yes, I would also prefer to dismantle Russia rather than Turkmenistan, and Georgia rather than Russia. An ancap society might grow from the ruins of a conditional Venezuela, but it would have to grow out of such shit that going there at that time would require one to be either a martyr or a god-given entrepreneur. Quite different is a carefully dismantled state in an already decent society. No aesthetics of the “wild nineties” for you; everything is free and with dignity.
In Russia now, among the protesters, the reverence for the law takes on a completely religious character. Yes, we know the laws are shit, but for the sake of saving our souls, we will follow them to the last letter; and if the authorities themselves violate their own laws, we will sue them in their own court, lose in three instances, and win in the ECHR. I admire the optimism and consistency of these guys. I myself am too impatient to mow the lawn of democracy for two hundred years only to end up with a social-democratic society, and then wonder what to do with such a deeply rooted state. Reverence for the law can be both good and bad. Better to have reverence for property rights and intolerance towards violations of such rights, even if it means violating current laws.
For me, the indicator of the success of civil society is not the size of rallies, not the number of opposition deputies in parliaments, and not the regular change of heads of state—but a reduction of the state budget by at least ten percent a year while people’s wealth grows at even more significant rates. In this regard, Georgia seems quite promising to me: the sprouts of freedom have taken root well here, the state is quite weak, and there is not much interference in earning money under the table.
Tomorrow I am gradually heading toward Russia, but I will definitely return here, and quite possibly for a long time.
Very often, these kinds of tricky questions boil down to a lack of clarity in definitions. On the other hand, imprecise definitions provide an excellent opportunity to reflect on the entire topic at hand, which I will gladly do.
Historically, when speaking of free will, it is implied that although God is omniscient and omnipotent, having defined all the laws of existence, and that not a single blade of grass blooms without His providence, He made an exception specifically for humans. Having created man in His own image and likeness, and knowing his entire destiny from beginning to end, God nevertheless does not interfere in his behavior—except in those cases where He does, which is then termed a miracle or divine inspiration, but that is another story.
The concept of free will did not become established in Christian doctrine from the very beginning; in the writings of Augustine, we still see complete predestination, where a person has not a single chance of salvation unless it was predestined for them from the start. Within the framework of this strange doctrine—”I am a slave (that is, a speaking tool) and I will sternly state this”—there was no chance for libertarian ideas to even emerge. Indeed, what self-ownership can be discussed for a speaking tool that does not dare even to sneeze except by the will of the master.
If we shift from theology to a more commonplace understanding of free will, it could be defined as the ability to act contrary to someone’s manipulations. Following this, we can observe that, indeed, quite many people do not possess free will in full, as their choices are determined by context rather than internal preferences (such matters are analyzed in detail in the trendy field of behavioral economics). Can pronounced libertarian relations exist in a society where such manipulative practices are actively applied? Yes, they can. Such images are often painted for us, showing a world of triumphant corporations. As long as manipulations are non-violent, libertarians will clearly point to their legitimacy, whereas violent opposition to them, such as destroying advertising materials, may indeed be suppressed in such a society.
Still, we are not talking about total zombification in our fantasies today, but even if we were, we would have a situation of private slavery, which is either voluntary—in which case we have no legal grounds to oppose it—or forced—in which case, again, libertarian doctrine provides all the tools necessary to counteract such practices.
1. What qualities does a person need to live in ancap? And to build it? 2. Given that full freedom will be provided — are there any customs or traditions that could more or less objectively negate such qualities in some perspective (and which should be avoided for practical reasons)? For some reason, as an illustration of this, Svetov’s favorite Amish, who reject technical progress and are quite isolated, come to mind.
Atomic Tram
It seems that in the dispute between Marx and McCloskey, you are on the girl’s side, and like her, you believe that having a certain technological framework is not enough to transition to a certain type of society, but a certain ideology is also needed. I also think this is the case; otherwise, my activity in instilling ancap values in people would be pointless.
I see two such key human qualities. First, a strive for freedom, otherwise where would anarchy come from? Second, a strive for wealth, otherwise where would capitalism come from?
Without the first, we easily get a classic pyramidal society where it is normal to be humiliated and to humiliate others — for the sake of grabbing a piece for oneself. Without the second, we will have an excess of conservatism, where anyone who achieves slightly more success than others would rather throw a party for the neighbors, where all the surplus is eaten up, than invest these funds to achieve even greater success in the future. Google what a potlatch is, and you will get a good illustration of what I mean.
And from here we smoothly transition to the second part of the question.
We have a society of people who value their freedom, strive for wealth, and therefore built an ancap around themselves, meaning a free market, which is then supposedly meant to resolve anything. What human quality, not contradicting the two basic ones for ancap, could gradually undermine them and lead to the destruction of a free market society?
Perhaps I can call such a quality oversensitivity. If a person is too bothered by too many things in other people, it will hinder cooperation. Yes, he may still be freedom-loving, yes, he may still strive for wealth, but he’s surrounded by such assholes! One person’s child tortures a cat; how can you buy groceries from him? Another has disgusting musical tastes, so he shouldn’t even hope for interior design. The third is a sexist; it’s a disgrace to even shit on the same hectare as him. And so the person begins to rush around, wondering where to run and where these wretched little humans will finally stop irritating him.
So ancap also cannot do without a certain healthy thick-skinnedness. The institution of reputation, so loved by ancaps, is the Trojan horse capable of “resolving” even the market!
The question reminded me of the disputes regarding the self-definition of the Libertarian Party of the USA: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. It’s roughly clear what is meant, but it looks like an attempt to assemble the word “eternity” from four known letters.
“Left” and “right” are such vague terms, so easily loaded with an entirely arbitrary agenda, that it’s almost scary to even use them.
Originally, the right wing in the French parliament represented the aristocracy, and now they are associated with Nazis and Christian conservatives; so why use “economically right-wing movement” instead of the correct “movement for economic freedom”? To confuse everyone? Or simply to set themselves in opposition to the economically left?
The socially left advocate not only for the freedom to use psychoactive substances or for the right to abortion, but also, for example, for the criminalization of sex workers’ clients, as well as for gun control. So why call oneself by the vague term “socially left” when you can immediately speak of a movement for personal freedom?
In the second part of his hoplophobic video, TrashSmash actually managed to say one smart phrase, I quote:
The only remaining convincing argument for easing access to weapons is personal freedom.
43:09-43:15
For a libertarian, this argument indeed outweighs any others. The right to own property, the right to use it for self-defense, sports, hunting, collecting, and other peaceful activities—these are above any statistical data and other appeals to public benefit.
Therefore, instead of digging into the depths of fragmented data collected through dubious methodologies for manipulative purposes at the expense of taxes, and using it to argue with another apologist for the disarmament of citizens, simply seduce them.
Just don’t take them hunting with drunken old-timers; it’s better to take them to a shooting range, let them listen to the safety briefing, fire a few dozen rounds, and hear “Thank you for safe shooting, come again” at the end. And once their fears subside, you can congratulate yourself: there is one less hoplophobe in the world.
It brings people so close!
And what do you think?
Как правильнее либертарианцам вести оружейную политику в современной России?
