Тег: Government

Doesn’t it seem to you that it is much simpler to keep a minimal state apparatus within limits than to force everyone to comply with the NAP (the boundaries of which are very fuzzy, by the way)

…And justice for all

NAP is not a non-aggression pact, as the well-known video blogger Mikhail Svetov likes to point out. It is not a norm handed down from above, like a single commandment from a libertarian deity. It is a purely analytically derived principle. If the principle “no one has the right to initiate violence with impunity” is generally observed in a given society, it means that there is—as engineers would put it—negative feedback operating there, which dampens manifestations of violence. Society becomes free from institutionalized coercion, which always leads to an explosive growth in prosperity.

Since the non-aggression principle is not established from above, naturally, no one imposes specific boundaries on everyone—for instance, claiming that a dirty look does not violate the NAP, but stepping on a foot already does. Such specifics are derived from practice, and this boundary can certainly change as customs evolve. The only thing clearly defined in the non-aggression principle is the absence of certain privileged groups who, for some reason, have the right to initiate violence with impunity.

The feedback loop works because the use of violence against an aggressor, whoever they may be, is precisely legitimate. In general, anyone can apply such retaliatory violence; the limitations here are purely technical: first, there must be the physical capability to do so, and second, reliable information about who applied what violence to whom.

The idea of limited government is to delegate the identification of aggressors and the application of counter-violence against them to one specific organization. This relieves the majority of society from such a burdensome duty. However, first, we have no right to forbid people from exercising counter-violence directly, without delegating it to anyone. And second, we have no right to forbid people from delegating rights to counter-violence to any other organization besides the one called the government. The attempt to forbid this is itself a violation of the NAP, which should entail counter-violence against whoever attempted to impose such a ban on people using force.

Thus, the only way for a limited government not to violate the NAP is to be a market monopoly—that is, to serve its clients based on voluntary contracts, and to do so so cheaply and qualitatively that it is simply unprofitable for competitors to enter this market, and the vast majority of people prefer to entrust counter-violence to the government rather than practice it themselves. Robert Nozick advocates approximately this point of view in his book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”.

Sale of harmful goods to children

According to libertarian law, the sale of alcohol and tobacco should not be prohibited by force of law (nor should it be subject to fines), including to minors, because it is a victimless crime.

Given that I am currently working as a cashier, my colleagues and I ask for IDs from everyone except those who look under 50, because those participating in sting operations are 17-year-olds who look much older than their age: young men with gray hair, thick beards and muscular builds, and girls who are tall, stout, with makeup and “first” wrinkles. Dozens of customers daily harass us, telling us “not to take it to the point of absurdity” or to stop creating “Kafkaesque” situations. The solution proposed to me by the surrounding statistes is even more of a hell—to ask everyone, to lobby for checking documents through the register as in the USA, etc. My old acquaintances and friends harass me by saying that alcohol consumption at a young age increases the risk of alcoholism many times over. Yes, I am aware. Moreover, I myself actively stood by the same prohibitory position, was an active lobbyist and advocate for control measures on alcohol and tobacco, which was sometimes a topic for discussion with these friends and acquaintances or even a reason for meeting. That is why my social networks are under tension right now. But it is inevitable. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then; I have been studying economics and history for three years, and for the last few months, I have openly considered myself a libertarian.

So, the sale of a product that sits on a store shelf for legal money is not violence. But some people believe that by selling to those under 18, I am committing violence. People tell me that advertising and propaganda force one to start drinking, and that until a certain age, a person supposedly has no freedom of choice. As if they acquire it on their 18th birthday. As if they have none at all before that. Simply, parents should handle upbringing while children live with them, not the state. This answer does not satisfy such people.

How can I clearly explain to them that the decision to sell or not sell anything should be made by the owner, and they should not be punished for selling or not selling?

Sergey Sushinsky

I would suggest approaching your argumentation from two sides.

First, you need to demonstrate that the very idea that the state does good through trade bans is a poor idea. Remind them how in the Soviet Union people were imprisoned for trading foreign currency, and in general for any entrepreneurship involving reselling (for this, a seemingly neutral economic term, “speculation,” was used as a condemnation). Later, currency trading was permitted, but no one compensated those previously imprisoned for currency operations for their losses. All over the world, the trade of marijuana is gradually being legalized, while in Russia, more people are imprisoned for the distribution of substances than for theft. And when marijuana trade is permitted in Russia, it is likely that no one will compensate the losses of all those previously convicted under Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Remind them that in many Islamic countries, the sale of alcohol is illegal not only to children but to adults as well. In short, there are many restrictions on free trade that are introduced by the state and then repealed. So why did they decide that the ban on selling alcohol to children is actually necessary and will not subsequently be repealed by the same state as mistaken or even criminal? And who will then reimburse alcohol traders for their losses in fines and bribes during the period of the ban?

Secondly, point out to them that if the satisfaction of a need is pushed out of the legal field, it begins to be satisfied illegally. A child was unable to drink beer and smoke cigarettes—they have an unsatisfied need and unspent money. Tomorrow they will buy mephedrone. Maybe it would have been better to sell them beer?

They don’t ask for ID on Hydra

Transhumanists doubt ancap

My post from the day before yesterday was reposted in a transhumanist channel, where they also posted a couple of remarks:

1. Transhumanism is closely linked to scientific and technological progress, and that requires huge financial injections; even states have problems with this, as sufficient funds for science are often not found, and under ancap, where everything will be decentralized, it could become even worse (I may be wrong, I am not as familiar with ancap ideas as the ancaps themselves), even corporations might lack funds, especially considering their drive to maximize profit. Building things like the LHC could be impossible under ancap, given the required funds and, essentially, the lack of profitability. And there wouldn’t be enough philanthropists for such scales. However, considering that under ancap, capitalists will gain access to the resources previously owned by states, this should give them more opportunities, although it’s still not a fact that it will be enough. 

Here I want, firstly, to refer to my old post about funding fundamental science under ancap, and secondly, to point out that transhumanism does not need things like the LHC: research in biotechnology, bioinformatics, and other transhumanist agendas does not require a super-concentration of resources on a single mega-project, which means that funding can be decentralized, gradual, and quickly transition from the fundamental science stage to the applied stage, with rapid implementation of results in business. As far as I know, the most expensive research in this field was the sequencing of the human genome; it was carried out worldwide for many years by numerous laboratories without disrupting current scientific activities, and this is still much simpler than building some unimaginably complex installation in one place.

2. Regarding cyberpunk, that is incorrect. Cyberpunk is not tied to the fact of the existence of states; moreover, cyberpunk often depicts states as having either disappeared or lost all power, with corporations taking their place. And it is under ancap that a cyberpunk scenario of the world being governed by corporations is more than likely. One could even say that cyberpunk often captures precisely the world of anarcho-capitalism.

I am proceeding from Oppenheimer’s definition of the state, that is, an organization that uses systematic, regular, legalized, and continuously applied “political methods” to extract wealth from the producing society. Cyberpunk corporations differ from corporations in current reality in that they are states in the Oppenheimer sense, they are simply extraterritorial. This system differs from anarcho-capitalism precisely by the legality of political methods, whereas under ancap they are marginal.

Political methods are not needed, buddy

Is it worth building ancap if it is not a fact that it will work?

And with transhumanism, everything will be fucking great.
It will happen soon, we just have to wait!!!
Everything will be possible there, everything will be a blast,
There, we probably won’t have to die at all.

…And justice for all

Under a state, you’ll be fucking exhausted waiting for transhumanism, but under ancap, it really will happen soon. There is a market demand for transhumanism, but state regulations slow its arrival. Judge for yourself: even harmless genetically modified plants are banned in a whole number of countries, let alone the modification of the human genome?

Again, transhumanism will open up cosmic expansion for humans, and it’s not so easy to draw state borders in space. This is also a strong argument for the state in favor of banning research into adapting humans to extraterrestrial conditions.

In short, it’s possible to imagine ancap without transhumanism, but transhumanism without ancap—only in cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is exactly that kind of fiction where the main fantastic assumption is the preservation of the state upon the arrival of transhumanism. Granted, in most examples of the genre, these are no longer territorial states, but a cockroach-like system of extraterritorial protection rackets, but their essence doesn’t change much.

As for a society where there is no need to die, I have no particular fears. In essence, the only institution that would wither away in such a society is inheritance. And we didn’t really want it anyway. On the other hand, the individual planning horizon could grow significantly, and that is always a sign of a healthy and prosperous society.

Is it permissible to cover others’ treasures?

Look, check this out. I have a friend who works as an admin (sort of) in a restaurant. She’s a seasoned user herself. People are constantly leaving “stashes” there, and being experienced, she naturally spots them and takes them for herself. Then the guys show up and get disappointed.

goldstein

“Zakladki” (dead drops) are a genius technology for creating a logical break in trade and logistics chains when acquiring prohibited goods. Anya packages Boris’s goods and hides them wherever she deems appropriate, receiving a reward from Boris for every hidden stash. Vera transfers bitcoins to Hydra and receives an algorithm for finding the stash. After confirming that the stash has been found, she instructs Hydra to transfer the previously deposited bitcoins to Boris. All of this is further reinforced by dispute mechanisms, reviews, penalties for Anya from Boris for poor stashes, and other ingenious mechanics.

At every stage, all participants face risks. Anya can be caught with the goods. Vera can be caught with the goods. Vera might not find the stash. An unfound stash might be relocated, or a refund might be denied, which means costs for either Boris or Vera. Finally, Boris might be an undercover officer, and his reputation will depend on how quickly Hydra bans his shop.

Naturally, because possession of a stash entails state sanctions, it is legally ownerless. Anya, Vera, and Boris will all fiercely deny any connection between themselves and a piece of substance attached with a magnet under a table, and will disclaim any ownership rights to it—if asked by the state, which is formally the guarantor of private property rights on its territory. Dasha, who finds someone else’s stash, will deny her ownership rights to it no less fiercely. She was simply cleaning her assigned area, found some junk, has no idea what it is, mechanically put it in her pocket, and forgot to throw it in the trash.

Nevertheless, Anya, Boris, Vera, and Hydra sincerely and with full justification hate Dasha, and all the more so the more systematic her activity is: she increases costs across the entire chain, thereby contributing to higher prices for an already expensive product. If Vera or Anya catches Dasha, they will not doubt for a moment their right to use violence against her.

Such, in short, are the customs of this very peculiar market, where everyone proudly bears their own risks, yet everyone, guided by their own selfish interests, does everything to ensure the market continues its uninterrupted operation, multiplying the wealth of all its participants. Even Dasha.

After all, Dasha also has her boss, Fyodor Ovchinnikov. He is not involved at all; he sells people delicious pizza. And by clearing the pizzeria’s territory of dangerous stashes, Dasha helps reduce his risks. If Dasha reported this to him, he would say thank you. But in this system, all chains of cause and effect are broken, so Fyodor will never know what he owes to his brave admin.

P.S. Usually, I use an English sequence of character names to describe such mechanisms, but “zakladki” is a purely Russian technology, so today I have every reason to show some patriotism.

Help Dasha find the stash

How will a country without a state represent itself to other states?

Choosing a private representative? An armed population is great, but tanks, planes, and missiles—who sells them, who buys them, and consequently, who stores them? And obviously, how does a private individual profit from this? Donations? Or will they offer to protect a certain part of the population? Quite strange. Military personnel will go, for example, into various PMCs and become mercenaries, but what about deterrent weapons? A private individual will be paid from the outside, and that’s it. Kaput. Cosmopolitanism is cool, but this scenario is quite real. Again, terrorist attacks carried out for the purpose of intimidation, or due to disagreement with the population based on certain criteria. Who will investigate them? Private security organizations that engage in security activities? People who are interested in what happened? Quite likely. What about firefighters, who are supposed to arrive after the fact? They arrive, but the homeowner is gone, or simply doesn’t exist because the plot of land is a wasteland. Let it burn? Will the city saved from the fire pay them via donations? “Donations” is a crude word, but essentially, if people aren’t obligated to pay for it, they will more likely pay into insurance, and the insurance companies will handle it? Consequently, each insurance company will have its own ties with firefighters, etc. Okay, I answered that myself. But as for weapons of mass destruction and heavy military equipment, it’s still unclear.

Royal hacker

It is quite difficult to answer such broad questions, so I will focus on the very first part.

Indeed, there is a rather peculiar service that seemingly only a state can provide to a person: the service of representation before another state. States do not consider citizens of other states to be subjects of treaties. They negotiate with other states, while citizens and companies act as objects of agreements. This applies to trade tariffs and regulations, visa regimes, and the extradition of criminals. How can the market respond to such rudeness?

Fortunately, states can make decisions regarding foreigners not only in a bilateral but also in an autistic mode. For example, issuing an order that products receiving certain certificates are not subject to customs duties. This means nothing prevents the company issuing the certificates from working with influence groups in those countries that are of interest as a sales market. Similarly, some consortium of travel agencies could work with lobbyists regarding a visa-free regime for buyers of certain tour packages. In general, the task looks difficult but solvable, although it seems more likely to me to obtain visas by purchasing some convenient citizenship (and the more wealthy apatrides wanting to travel there are in the market, the more various small island states will compete for them, and due to the volume, the price of the matter will quite quickly drop to a quite acceptable level).

It is more difficult with the pursuit of criminals. I once wrote about the functions of a prison under ancap, arguing that the criminal needs it primarily as a refuge from retribution. If a criminal has the opportunity to flee to the territory of a state, they effectively receive the same refuge, just without being locked within four walls. On the other hand, the state in terms of protection is a prison for the poor. That is, protection exists, but it is purely nominal. So, if someone hiding on the territory of a state manages to be discovered (which is a quite feasible and legal task for private detective agencies, which they can perfectly perform on the territory of a state), then one can either enter negotiations with them or deal with them in one way or another, since state structures are unlikely to be able to or want to protect them. Finally, one can threaten the criminal not with retribution, but with deportation to the state whose citizenship they acquired to cross the border, and there they can be judged by a state court. A mediocre solution, but threatening to hand one bandit over to other bandits for retribution if they don’t compensate for the damages is more or less permissible.

The rest of your long question is mainly devoted to issues of the use and sale of heavy weaponry. Nothing prevents a private company, operating on stateless territory, from producing weapons and legally supplying them to the territories of states if appropriate contracts are concluded with buyer companies (defense ministries can also act as such). Of course, national armies usually follow standards, and if a specific tank model has been adopted for armament, pushing through a procurement decision for another model is quite a hassle. But these are issues that are already being solved without state patronage, so under ancap, arms companies will handle this—they aren’t children.

As for the purchase of heavy weaponry by some hypothetical ancap PMCs, I personally do not believe in the market justification for such purchases, but I cannot provide clear arguments. Perhaps a few PMCs on stateless territory will go all out; after all, a tank biathlon is a quite monetizable show, something to keep them occupied in peacetime.

Who will protect children from violence (on the part of parents)? How can a child prove their agency?

Immanuel Kant

In fact, with the same justification, we could ask: “Who will protect the individual from state violence? How can a person prove their agency?”

In response to state violence, a person can resist directly, attempt to appeal to one branch of government regarding violence committed by another branch, flee to another state, or to a place where state orders do not operate. Finally, a person can resign themselves, repent, and become an exemplary citizen so that the state violence directed at them becomes more or less tolerable. None of this will help them prove their agency to the state, but it may somehow influence the severity of the violence.

As is easy to see, a child can do exactly the same in relation to their parents. They can fight with their parents and even kill them, complain to the father about the mother or to the mother about the father, run away to other people, or simply try to survive on the street. Finally, they can become an exemplary child and fulfill all parental whims. None of this helps them prove their agency within the existing orders, but it may somehow influence the severity of the violence they are subjected to.

The power of the state over its subject and the power of parents over a child are equally total in the absence of external factors. To protect human dignity from the power of the state, people organize into a civil society that directly opposes the state, both using tools provided by the state and through direct moral pressure on individual state representatives (we leave political terrorism outside the scope of this consideration, although it glares quite menacingly from the sidelines). Similarly, the family’s power over a child is limited by society, both through official channels, such as complaints to state authorities, and through direct moral pressure on the parents (methods of physical coercion glare menacingly from outside the scope of this issue).

To summarize. The power of one human over another is dangerous and undesirable in itself. Wherever possible, the “ruler-subject” relationship should be transitioned into relationships between negotiating subjects. Wherever this is not possible—for example, due to the weakly expressed agency of one of the parties—power can and must be limited through pressure from other subjects who form public opinion.

Of course, public opinion should not be idealized—it is a tool for interference in private relationships by third parties; it is not for nothing that public opinion is often called the opinion of those who weren’t asked. Libertarianism provides the principle by which the legitimacy of public opinion’s interference in private relationships can be determined: the now-clichéd NAP. The more obvious its violation within the family, the more the opinion of those who weren’t asked becomes sought after.

How to achieve ancap if states, and not ancap, developed from the state of nature?

It is clear that all states cannot be destroyed overnight, but then how? What should guarantee the stability of ancap?

анонимный вопрос

States evolved from a state of nature because plunder proved more profitable than non-violent methods of enrichment. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then; people are becoming wealthier, as a result of which greed for preservation becomes more characteristic for them than greed for acquisition. That is, not the desire to snatch what belongs to others, but the strive to preserve one’s own. If one attempts to snatch what belongs to others, fraud becomes preferable to direct violence.

So the path to ancap is quite clear: technological progress, an increase in labor productivity, the emergence of free market tools that do not require centralized trusted intermediaries—and on one hand, we will have less and less moral justification for the forced redistribution of resources, and on the other—less and less technical feasibility for it.

Of course, the scenario where “all states disappeared at once” is quite strange; it is even difficult for me to imagine how that could happen without reptilians. The foundations of the state will be eroded gradually, as is actually happening now. It is difficult to say exactly which path humanity will take to reach ancap. The direct and clear path of minarchists, using ordinary tools of political reform? Progressive offshoring with a transition to panarchy? Harsh agorism with a heavy mix of crypto-anarchism? Seasteading and other Liberlands—that is, the construction of anarcho-capitalism through the occupation of no-man’s lands, with subsequent replication of the experience?

Any of these paths would satisfy me; there are no fundamental, insoluble disagreements between the different routes, for the state lives in people’s minds, and exactly how to expel it from there is, in many ways, a matter of taste.

What guarantees the stability of ancap? Only economics. The less profitable plunder is compared to non-violent methods, the lower the probability of the return of systemic plunder, i.e., the state. In the form of marginal practices, it will not pose a serious danger.

Economics and rhetoric. Interest and morality. Being and consciousness. These are mutually influencing things. Based on bare economic incentives, the state will not collapse for a long time and will persist simply by virtue of tradition. Based on bare rhetoric, the abolition of the state is unlikely to be stable: a new lucky plunderer will come and declare an era of prosperity under the shadow of the paternal care of the great steersman. In short, both factors are important.

Mao is perceived by us as a funny ancient deity, but what if I posted a picture of Stalin? Leaders are attractive…