Тег: Government

Fighting repressions through the harassment of security forces

Bitarch’s Column

An interesting and quite popular idea for a non-violent struggle against employees of state security agencies was voiced in a conversation on the SVTV channel by Mikhail Svetov and Pavel Nikulin (the stream “Federal Torture Service”). This strategy is successfully applied in the West by far-left organizations such as SJWs. Libertarians should also adopt it if we want to achieve any significant results and avoid being “crushed by the system.”

The essence of the idea is to publicize the names, photographs, home addresses, social media profiles, and other personal data of state employees (FSB, police, Rosgvardia, FSIN, OMON, etc.) found guilty of repressions against oppositionists. This can be done both online (in the form of a site like “Myrotvorets”) and offline (in the form of flyers near the home where the “sadist” lives). To counter expected censorship attempts, it is better to host such sites on the darknet (TOR) or, in the future with the development of blockchain technologies, in decentralized data storage systems with IPFS.

Fearing the loss of reputation and harassment of both himself and his family, this employee will surely think twice before “putting on a bottle” another oppositionist.

For my part, I will add that it would also be good to have a unified database with as many employees of the repressive apparatus as possible, creating for them a risk of guaranteed retribution in the event of mass state terror (and preventing it—similar to the deterrence doctrine between states themselves, after which wars between all developed countries completely ceased in the second half of the 20th century).

Addition from Ancap-chan

I am not aware if Bitarch is a Russian citizen, but I want to note that Russian legislation protects the personal data of its citizens; therefore, if any such data appears online, it will, of course, be posted by unknown State Department agents, and if it appears right by your entrance, it is personally from the retired US President Mr. Obama, out of boredom and malice.

I also want to note that much easier targets for such measures are not even the security forces, but much more defenseless categories of citizens: PEC employees who commit violations during vote counting, administration employees who do not approve mass protests, and similar silent executors who are ready today to violate citizens’ rights for a mere pittance. If it turns out that such activity leads to significant personal inconveniences, some of them will either refuse such side jobs or start negotiating for an increase in the rates for their thankless labor.

It is known that environmental regulations have been able to radically improve air purity in New York since the 1970s. But how would this work under ancap? What would replace regulations and how would the purity of water and air be ensured?

анонимный вопрос

What needs to be done to achieve clean air with the help of the state? You need to launch a public campaign, convince politicians that ecological regulations can generate both political capital and a decent amount of embezzled money—and eventually, the state will squeeze those who pollute, reducing their income, and bestow favors upon those who want clean air. This is, of course, if you live in New York, and not in the city of Sibay in the Republic of Bashkortostan.

What happens to the environment in a free market? Where existing technologies mean that you either pollute and make money, or you don’t pollute and make jack shit, you will pollute. And around you will live those who also pollute and make money, or are otherwise tied to your business. Those for whom the smoke is harmful simply leave for wherever it is cleaner and start their own business there, linked to the sale of beautiful views and clean air. For example, in the USA in the 20th century, New York and other Detroits and Los Angeleses were polluting, while connoisseurs of healthy recreation mass-developed Florida, which rapidly transformed from a land of swamps into a land of beaches.

The market very reliably compels people toward peaceful coexistence when everyone minds their own business and does not try to suppress competitors by force. When the state began to actively fight for clean air in cities, businesses found places to pollute and began moving to third-world countries; the country paid for this with the emergence of the Rust Belt—cities where it was impossible to find any other more or less profitable activities besides polluting. Of course, I am simplifying greatly, and it wasn’t just about ecology—the state was advancing on many fronts.

Of course, business can be criticized for often starting to solve problems as they arise, meaning that for some time a problem remains unsolved. But the state, with its manic-depressive style of reacting, either forces you to swim in an empty pool or demands that you march along the bottom of one that has already filled up. If ecological regulations are introduced before the emergence of sufficiently cheap emission cleaning technologies, you will either get corruption or destroy businesses, and a vast number of people will suffer needlessly from poverty. Conversely, if you try to centrally suppress ecological protests, a vast number of people will also suffer needlessly from poor ecology.

At the same time, business in a free market, even without any state regulations, will look for ways to pollute less, produce less waste, spend less energy, and so on. A dirty enterprise is located on the outskirts; skilled workers must be lured there with good money, the produced goods must be transported to consumers in far-off lands, waste must also be hauled away, and so on. If it were possible to produce the same thing with comparable costs right next to the mass consumer, it would provide a significant competitive advantage, which means investing in technologies that reduce ecological damage.

The main means of improving the environment is the prosperity of the people. As long as people are poor, they will turn a blind eye to everything that hinders the satisfaction of their most urgent needs. Only after becoming wealthy do they begin to think about how to organize a comfortable life. Trying to organize their life for them immediately, at their own expense, while preventing them from becoming wealthy, is a crime.

If you live here, it means you need this for some reason

How do the libertarians intend to build the RNG (Russian National State)? How should it be structured and within what borders? And what is this for?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Not all libertarians intend to build a Russian national state. However, the principle of contractual jurisdictions or communities does not preclude the construction of one.

First and foremost, the principle of federalism presupposes a confederation and voluntarism. Numerous communities enter into agreements regarding the voluntary joining and leaving of the confederation. And people reclaim their natural right to live by the rules they have devised for themselves.

Those wishing to build an RNS can unite, acquire land, or combine their holdings, choose a form of governance, and create laws there. For a jurisdiction to be considered libertarian, they must renounce the initiation of aggressive violence (“don’t tread on me”) and recognize freedom of contract (anyone can become a citizen of the RNS by agreement with other participants in the jurisdiction, and anyone can terminate their RNS citizenship upon fulfilling all obligations under property contracts). The border will be defined by the boundaries of the holdings of the individual owners participating in the RNS and the owners of legal entities—contractual jurisdictions. As for what you decide within the jurisdiction, that is your right as free people united with a common goal, as long as you do not step on the tail of some rattlesnake (another community-jurisdiction).

Comment by Ancap-chan

Since 2014, Putin has been killing the idea of the Russian World. There will be no Russian national state. Libertarians, even less so, will not build it.

There are many other ideas and interests around which people will unite. The only Russian thing around which it makes sense for them to unite now and in the foreseeable future is the Russian language, somewhere abroad. This somewhat facilitates communication, although it far from always facilitates understanding.

And nations… Just forget about nations, you funny, touching little Hitlers.

Misha is smart; be like Misha.

How to bring ancap as close as possible in countries with a post-communist economy?

Everything looks quite smooth in the USA, but conditions are different in the former USSR. Often, loss-making state enterprises, mono-towns, an economy tied to the military-industrial complex, and micro-district housing developments hinder individualism and state non-interference — eliminating or minimizing the state and closing loss-making enterprises in a short timeframe would lead to unemployment and the demise of all public sector workers, while the survivors would hang the reformers, disregarding the NAP. Does Russia have a chance for successful libertarian reforms?

анонимный вопрос

Answer by Alex Murin

And why rush? Ancap and libertarianism are an ideology. If people share it, they will be guided by it. If they don’t, they won’t. You cannot force people to live without a state. These are free people; they decide for themselves how to live. It is only in mono-towns and at loss-making state enterprises that people more quickly come to the realization that the government is not their friend. Instead of shops with beautiful displays, kiosks with cheap beer begin to appear; instead of excise vodka, people switch to moonshine. Instead of saying “I am an honest taxpayer,” people prefer to hide their income and conduct cash transactions without documentation.

High-rise development, where neighbors do not know each other and the concept of “one’s own” ends at the apartment threshold, is a serious problem for a free society. Until people become owners of their land and understand that their home is a fortress belonging only to them, it is difficult to speak of freedom and self-government. But we have another factor playing in our favor — poverty. A person who has nothing to lose is more likely to stop supporting the one who robs them year after year than a person who has their own house or firm, who is not ashamed to say “my grandfather and father voted for the Republicans, and I support them too.” There are many paths to a free society; we chose the path through poverty and extreme social inequality. And I would not want to specify deadlines; I would rather indicate the direction.

Addition by Ancap-tyan

During the collapse of the state, we should all take an example from Venezuela. While official propaganda there glorified the victories of the socialist economy and inflation hit record highs, people invested in what was beyond the state’s control — in bitcoin. The volume of bolivar transactions on the localbitcoins service noticeably exceeds, for example, the volume of euro transactions. However, Russians do not particularly need my advice, as the volume of ruble transactions on localbitcoins also exceeds the volume of euro transactions. So, even when the state demonstrates extreme inefficiency, it is by no means necessary to lose everything because of it. When a chance arises to change something in the country, it is better to have resources than not to have them.

Of course, bitcoin is not the only possible investment beyond the state’s control. Even more important are investments in horizontal ties. You may not be a civil society if you believe that political methods are currently ineffective, or if you despise political methods as such. But as atomized loners, you will not survive without the state. Therefore, the well-known communist slogan calling for the unification of the world proletariat should also be taken into account and creatively reworked for yourself, simply by removing the restrictions on the class composition of your community.

Finally, if for some reason you are a public sector worker receiving pennies for meaningless and ineffective work for the state, it would be foolish to discourage you from this job — you would have left it long ago yourself if you could. But you should not obsess over it. They say that in the late Soviet Union, which consisted of public sector workers just a bit more than entirely, terms absent from socialist political economy, such as “shabashka,” “kalym,” and other names for counter-economic phenomena, enjoyed extraordinary popularity. And so it is now — a good leftist under socialism strengthens not the marriage, but the personal budget. You can receive a salary from the state, but it is better to spend your main efforts on side jobs.

How is the success of modern China explained from a libertarian perspective? What is the role of state regulation in it?

анонимный вопрос

Actually, modern China is not only the People’s Republic of China, but also the Republic of China, as well as Macau, Hong Kong, and to a considerable extent, Singapore. And specifically in terms of citizen welfare, the People’s Republic of China fares worse than all the other states I mentioned, despite the fact that the starting conditions for economic development in the PRC, the Republic of China, and Singapore were roughly the same.

Therefore, from a libertarian perspective, one must explain China’s failure rather than its success. Yes, of course, Deng Xiaoping proved better for the PRC than Mao Zedong. But the residents of the Republic of China achieved far more significant success without any world-famous reformers. What is the role of state regulation here? As is easy to see, it is negative.

In reality, of course, there is a degree of cunning here; it is much harder for a large continental country to escape poverty and socialism than for a small maritime one. But any city on the coast of mainland China could today live no worse than Hong Kong or at least the Republic of China, and if that is not the case, the responsibility lies solely with the leadership of the PRC. The guiding and directing role of the Communist Party is too great, the share of the state sector in the economy is too high, and too many resources are spent not on what people are willing to buy, but on the construction of the Great Firewall and the social credit system.

The Great Firewall of China and its role in the success of modern China

How are you going to build anarcho-capitalism? What is the plan of action?

Militiaman

I would rather speak not of a plan, but of a strategy of action. A plan is good when there is certainty: a specific achievable measurable goal, the ability to clearly specify means, break actions into stages, and so on. For example, Navalny’s campaign headquarters acted according to a plan when starting his presidential campaign: open so many headquarters by such-and-such date, distribute so many newspapers, collect so much money. Strategy differs in that only the goal is known, along with certain characteristics of the environment and some restrictions on the means used—and one must understand how the goal can be achieved at all under these conditions. An example of a strategy is “smart voting,” a recent initiative from the same Navalny headquarters. The goal is to bring down the Putin regime. The strategy at this stage is to break the monopoly of United Russia in elections. And to this are added various justifications and explanations of details.

So, the goal is anarcho-capitalism, that is, a society based on voluntary market relations, respect for private property, decentralized contract law, recognizing the value of cooperation and the disadvantage of aggressive violence.

The starting position is the state, meaning a situation in which there are categories of persons capable of committing aggressive violence with impunity through the silent acquiescence of the majority, and although it is assumed that the boundaries of this violence are defined, they are quite vague and volatile.

The strategy consists in undermining the legitimacy of the state as an institution. In relatively prosperous countries, people have to start by justifying why the state is a bandit rather than a provider of benefits. In Russia, this is already obvious to many, but it is still important to make the idea a commonplace that trying to replace a bad state with a good one is either a dead end or, at the very least, cannot be the ultimate goal.

In order for the perception of the state as a desirable or, at least, inevitable state of civilized society to cease being mainstream, one can work in several directions, according to one’s tastes and competencies:

  • developing and popularizing tools that allow one to get by without the state in spheres where it claims dominance;
  • constantly demonstrating the failures of the state and the victories of private initiative—the state must look like a total loser;
  • mass discredit of the main myths of state propaganda—from the efficiency of democracy to the efficiency of propaganda itself;
  • demonstrating the invulnerability of society before the state, or, at least, the extremely low efficiency of the state’s struggle against ancap ideologues;
  • undermining the resource base of the state by evading plunder and through the direct privatization of state property;
  • demonstrating the moral unacceptability of working for the state, from “don’t get ahead of the locomotive” to universal condemnation.
It seems Tommy does not approve

Consequences of marijuana legalization

According to research, in Colorado, after the legalization of marijuana, “…the black market, contrary to expectations, only grew after legalization; after legalization, the state rose to first place in marijuana use among teenagers, and the school system received no positive changes.

There was a surge in crimes such as robberies and car thefts. The growth in crime rates in 2016 exceeded 11 times the average among the 30 largest US cities. The number of murders increased by 10%”.

Taken from here. Please comment.

анонимный вопрос

To answer the question, I had to familiarize myself with the English-language report on the consequences of legalization provided in the bibliography at the end of the article.

The funniest part turned out to be the black market. Why did it grow? Because entrepreneurs from other states came to Colorado legally to stock up and then tried to move the product into their own states, where it remained illegal. This is obvious, as weed remained significantly more expensive there due to its illegality. Naturally, some of the traffic was intercepted, money was spent on this, and all of it entered the reporting; as a result, we see a paradoxical situation: it seems like legalization, but the volume of illegal operations is growing, and more funds are spent on suppressing them. In other words, federal agency expenditures increased to combat a business that is legalized in the state, and we are told about an increase in expenditures to fight the black market in the state. Just legalize weed in the other states, and these expenses will disappear; until then, suffer in silence.

When analyzing mortality, the report focuses on road deaths. When passing the marijuana legalization law, it was assumed that by increasing the number of people driving high, the number of drunk drivers would decrease, as it is safer to drive high. What came of this? I quote: “But while traffic deaths in general have declined in Colorado, the percentage of marijuana-related fatalities increased, the report said.” In other words, exactly what was wanted happened, but since the report was written by a commission fighting substances, they emphasize that more deaths are now passing through their department, and this, allegedly, is bad. Well, the fact that the state is not monolithic and contains different interest groups is a long-known fact; however, for citizens, the only important thing is that overall road mortality in the state has decreased.

The economic effect of legalization is such that in 2017 alone, marijuana sales volume amounted to one and a half billion dollars. In addition to regular taxes, marijuana is subject to special taxes, and through these alone in 2017, municipalities and the state collected 247 million dollars from citizens, or 2.3% of the state budget’s total revenue.

How did the state dispose of this money? Part of the money turned out to be spent on providing medical care to marijuana users, which can be considered at least somewhat legitimate spending, although this money could simply not have been taken, and people would have paid doctors themselves without the mediation of officials. But the majority went to various crap like funding schools or the police—that is, protectionist measures to develop some industries at the expense of others and direct embezzlement. Well, the efficiency of the state in such matters has been known for a long time and is similarly unsurprising.

Finally, I looked into what’s happening with crime. The source used in the article gives an account from a police sergeant about a “green rush” in the state, where adventurers from all over the country come to grow marijuana and make money from it. And since the state surrounded this business with regulatory hurdles, as it loves to do, people grow weed illegally—for example, they rent a house, tear up the floors, and set up a farm under the roof. Naturally, with full legality of the business, no one would think of bothering with such bullshit when it is cheaper to rent a piece of land than to set up underground farms in houses, while also violating the property rights of the owners of those very houses.

As for the 10% increase in the overall crime rate, I want to note that the influx of tourists and entrepreneurs is unlikely to be accurately accounted for by state authorities, unlike the crime rate, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the rate per 100,000 people remained roughly the same as it was.

Summary. Most of the problems mentioned in the article are either contrived, related to remaining legislative restrictions in this industry, or due to specifics of statistical accounting (some things became more visible, such as doctor visits, and some less, such as the number of state residents). As marijuana is legalized in all states, everything will settle down quite quickly, and people will become richer and happier.

Если вы пришли сюда по ссылке из других соцсетей, напоминаю, что на мой канал можно подписаться в телеграме, а для обсуждения деятельности канала там же, в телеграме, создан уютный чатик.

Could private security companies, in the process of competition, engage in physical combat against competitors or torture those who will not use their services?

анонимный вопрос

I think no one doubts that they have the technical capability for such actions, which means they cannot be ruled out. Of course, such excesses will occur; the only question is what they will lead to.

First, let’s consider an example of a monopoly security structure like the “police.” If a competitor emerges, wishing to provide security services to someone other than the police, the police will, of course, enter into a physical struggle with them. This might look boring: initiating a case, conducting an inspection, arrest, investigation, trial, fines, and imprisonment. It might look exciting: chases, shootouts, a coffin, a cemetery. One way or another, the competitor is eliminated, simply because most citizens are convinced of the benefit of a state monopoly on violence, as Hobbes himself proclaimed and Shulman herself confirmed. Will the police torture those who do not use their services? Worse. They will torture those who pay for their services, simply because they can, and there is nothing to oppose them with. More precisely, it is proposed to oppose this lawlessness with the activities of specialized alternative security enterprises: the prosecutor’s office, the internal security department, and so on. In other words, even in current reality, no one is ready to agree to a full and comprehensive monopoly on violence by a single actor. It is proposed that the watchmen be watched.

Now let’s consider a gangster “protection racket” like those that, according to legend, flooded the streets in the nineties. If a city is large enough, there may be several competing rackets. In what cases do rackets enter into physical clashes with competitors? First, the clashes must be inexpensive (plenty of cheap fighters). Second, the disputed business must be quite lucrative. But if a certain business is potentially capable of bringing good money to a racket, it can afford to choose the racket that works better and cheaper, because otherwise, one can always turn to competitors. Thus, competition between rackets will inevitably lead to a reduction in extortion, meaning that physical clashes with competitors will become increasingly unjustifiable. Again, the faster fighters are spent, the more expensive they become. And so, bloody clashes become a rarity, and instead, the bosses settle everything “according to the code.”

And what about torturing those who are not clients? Of course, it is profitable for a racket to spread rumors about punishments for the stubborn. In reality, however, conducting such activities will become completely redundant over time, especially since just a couple or three well-publicized precedents—and few will risk being completely without protection, and bothering someone else’s client is already against the code and fraught with danger. Again, if someone is without protection, it does not mean they are completely harmless, or that there is no one to stand up for them. Simply put, in general, the people standing up for them will be amateurs, but amateurs can also be rare psychos. So why risk it?

The fighters are cheap, but already a bit worn out

Many questions and concerns

Greetings. I have a few concerns regarding ancap (or rather, regarding the anarchic part). First, is anarchy possible within a single state (territory)? Have there been such cases in history? How long did they last? Second, if the anarchic movement comes to power worldwide, could it happen that communities grow into the well-known states, and creating one’s own would be extremely difficult? Third, who will decide the important issues that the state solves today? No, I’m not talking about roads. I’m talking about money (who will handle its emission?), about emigration and immigration (will there be equivalents of visa centers, who will deal with this), about basic documents (will passports exist, who will issue them?), and who will handle ecology (often, to extract the maximum profit, it is better to use environmentally harmful means as they are simply cheaper)?

Kirill

Possibility of Anarchy

I have repeatedly written that law is rooted in human relationships and is determined by the willingness to tolerate certain actions on the part of other people. Is anarchy possible in some more or less distinct territory? Yes, if a critical number of residents of that territory are unwilling to tolerate “archy”—that is, compulsory management, the seizure of resources under the pretext of government needs, and everything else that accompanies the state.

Have there been such cases in history? Two fairly prolonged ones are well-documented: Ireland and Iceland. In both cases, instead of a state, there was what would now be called contractual jurisdictions, where people had a choice of whom exactly to turn to for conflict resolution and how exactly to coordinate their actions.

The world has now become much more globalized, and for an anarchic society to feel secure, it is not necessary to live compactly in a specific territory. Although many know from personal experience how much it helps when you are physically surrounded by like-minded people and you can afford exactly the lifestyle you prefer, knowing that you will find understanding and support among those around you. So, the pull toward territorial communities will remain, but they have no need to strive for considerable geographical extent; it is unlikely to be on a scale larger than a city.

Transformation of Society into a State

Do I fear that such poleis (the word “community” has been distorted by mutual responsibility, which facilitates its oppression by an external aggressor, so I would prefer not to use it) will turn into states? In conditions of global informational connectivity? In conditions where extraterritorial societies exist alongside territorial ones? You know, I find that doubtful; it’s roughly like fearing that birds will become dinosaurs again. The conditions are not the same. The short era of states is ending. (And, I hope, I don’t need to further explain that “polis” is a conventional name; real territorial anarchic societies will only slightly resemble ancient models)

Visas

Will some poleis provide access to outsiders only by special invitation? Yes, it is quite possible. Whoever invited them is responsible for the guest—this is a simple and natural mechanism that works perfectly without any state, its visa centers, and officials issuing entry permits.

Private Money

Money in the form of cryptocurrencies already circulates perfectly in a private manner; I see no reason why they should stop doing so, since the technology allows it.

Ecology

Ecology is a complex of knowledge and technologies applied to transform nature in such a way that humans can live most comfortably under the new conditions. Accordingly, the more people live in a certain territory and the wealthier they live, the higher the demand for ecology, and the fewer, the lower. Therefore, in territories where no one lives and no one claims, there is the least demand for any ecological transformations. It could be a primitive wilderness or a smoke-belching plant; however, where demand for ecology appears, there will be a nature reserve, a well-maintained park, a lawn convenient for lounging on the grass, a flower in a pot, or simply walls painted in a cheerful green color and a kitten in a phone app—depending on the extent to which elements of living nature are demanded in a specific place.

A conventional community of lovers of life among greenery in a modern city

Why you shouldn’t expect a “good state”?

Told by Bitarch

Among many oppositionists, there is an opinion that it is enough to do in Russia “as in Europe” and we will live almost in paradise. They usually praise Western countries for the separation of powers, honest courts, a transparent budget, smart regulation, fair taxes, freedom of speech, and many other things missing in the RF. But some of these people then begin to notice that all those achievements, for which they were ready to leave their homes, are slowly but surely fading even in their beloved West, let alone being transferred to Russia.

Why does this happen, and why is it pointless to wait for the state to improve, just as it is pointless to emigrate? I am ready to propose a hypothesis based on thoughts from the lectures of the famous sociologist Ella Paneyakh (they are on YouTube). I cannot guarantee the absolute accuracy of this hypothesis, but I believe the probability of it being true is over 99%.

In her lectures, Ella explains the theory of the stationary bandit, explaining the positive (creative, progressive) vector along which the state guided society as a necessity for military superiority over other stationary bandits. If one of them preferred traditional values and obscurantism, while another preferred progress and human rights, the latter would sooner or later achieve technological superiority over the former. Ultimately, traditionalists and supporters of a “brutal” violent hierarchy were simply conquered by more progressive states. Since the development of technology is impossible without respect for the individual and human rights, states were forced to adopt the best practices for ensuring personal freedoms from one another, increasing trust in the tax system through a transparent budget, creating social elevators for youth, fighting corruption, and offering asylum to defectors.

After World War II, as a result of the emergence of the doctrine of deterrence through the threat of mutually assured destruction, wars between more or less developed countries ceased completely. After all, no politician will dare to start a war if they know they themselves can be destroyed. As a result, the incentive to develop and create better conditions for their own citizens disappeared. After all, no one is threatening you, and your own population can be suppressed even with ordinary batons and tear gas.

The lack of an incentive to develop does not mean a stop in the competition of state practices; it is just that now states adopt methods of oppressing their own citizens from one another — hidden taxes, internet censorship, fighting protests and rallies, social ratings, surveillance, etc. You have probably noticed that some of these appeared first here and then in the West, others vice versa. But in general, both here and in the West, the volume of rights and freedoms is gradually, and at an increasingly rapid pace, decreasing. Emigration becomes pointless, because after a certain amount of time, all those shortcomings for which you left will also appear in your new location.

How can we bring back the competition of positive practices? By getting rid of the territorial monopoly of the state and moving to a system of extra-territorial contractual jurisdictions (ETCJs), we will create an incentive for individual ETCJs to compete for citizens. After all, switching to another ETCJ would be as simple as changing a mobile operator. Consequently, the managements of these companies will be interested in offering the best conditions for citizens.

Application for choosing a jurisdiction