Тег: Law

What punishment could a hacker receive under ancap for their deeds? And a pentester, if they perform a hack to help, without warning the potential victim/person being saved?

ℛØ௶Ꭿℒ ℋᎯℭᏦℰℛ (question paid in the amount of 0.00119699btc)

Thank you for broadening my horizons, now I know what a pentester is))

Who is a hacker or a pentester from a legal point of view? They are a trespasser, that is, a violator of the boundaries of private property. Such a violation in itself does not yet cause damage to the property owner, but the owner has every right to oppose it.

At the same time, the owner’s arbitrariness in choosing means of opposition is limited. It is one thing to repel the break-in itself (I opened your gate and peeked inside, you glare at me fiercely, as if to say, “what are you staring at,” I close the gate, turn around and walk past), and another thing to pursue the person who carried out this break-in. You are no longer on your own territory, the intrusion is not currently happening, so what are your grounds for using violence?

Such grounds could only be a property claim. The right to shoot a real physical trespasser who has violated the boundaries of your private property arises only because you have strong reasons to assume a real threat to your property. And even then, in most cases, the court considers that such grounds arise only when the property boundary is clearly marked, a “Trespassers will be shot” sign is installed on the boundary, and the violator saw and ignored it.

Thus, even if, by putting in some effort, you managed to reliably determine the identity of the hacker who broke into a particular network resource of yours, you will not be able to legally demand any compensation from them until you explain exactly what damage was caused. At the same time, copying information, even if it is very dear to you, does not cause damage. Now, if, for example, the hacker caused a server malfunction and your online store did not work for two hours—that is already real damage, the size of which can be assessed. As for how property damage is handled under ancap, I have already described that extensively.

Obviously, few people will undertake to spend a vast amount of resources on searching for a hacker and bringing them to court; most, of course, will prefer passive defense, as it is ultimately cheaper. And here, pentesters with their profit motive are the first friends of business. By arranging penetration tests followed by detailed information security recommendations, they will cheaply provide owners of information resources with prevention of hacker attacks.

Of course, the market is unlikely to “solve” hackers completely; this will remain a niche for enthusiasts of exciting intellectual earnings for quite a while. But, having settled down, a hacker will, of course, move into more profitable sectors.

And how is libertarianism in terms of sex?

анонимный вопрос

As is well known, economic theory does not provide quantitative predictions, so let us not guess exactly how many days you will be unable to walk; instead, let’s actually reflect on how libertarianism stands in terms of sex.

Sex between legally competent persons

Anything is permissible here, provided that voluntariness is observed. I will specifically note that voluntary consent can be withdrawn at any moment. If a penalty was provided for this by contract, then the penalty is paid. Post-coital disagreement is a legal nonsense; any sane court would tell you to get lost with such claims. A demand for a penalty for inadequate quality of services is permissible if such a possibility was agreed upon in advance.

If one of the subjects was bound by a contract with a third party, and the sex violates this contract, then the second subject, who did not enter into the contract, is not a party to the conflict and cannot be held liable. So stop pulling the hair of the vile home-wrecker and focus on the divorce from the husband.

The existence of a subordination relationship between subjects is not, by default, an obstacle to sex. Thus, if a department head promotes their sexual partner, or conversely, refuses a bonus nomination for refusing sex, that is the business owner’s problem.

Sex between non-legally competent persons

The participants of the act themselves remain legally uninvolved, just as a dog is not subject to trial for mating with someone’s bitch without permission while the owners were looking away. All possible claims regarding the excess are settled between the guardians. Moreover, the fact that one of the guardians disapproves of what happened while the second has nothing against it is irrelevant. Justified claims may arise only if this disapproval was known in advance and the guardian of the second party incited the ward to act. Otherwise, post-factum claims make no more sense than the post-coital disagreement of one of the participants of the act.

Sex between a legally competent and a non-legally competent person

A simple combination of considerations from the two previous sections applies here. Everything performed by mutual consent is permissible; a justified claim may arise only if the legally competent party was aware in advance of the guardian’s disagreement regarding sex with the ward.

Sex with an incapacitated person

Here, there is a firm presumption of disagreement. If consent is not expressed in an explicit form (for example, if the girl is dead drunk and asleep), it means there is no consent.

Don’t even think about it, kitty!

Why, under ancap, will courts follow libertarian principles of law?

анонимный вопрос

Answering this question is not just simple, but very simple. If people only apply to a court voluntarily, and the court has no means of coercing the execution of its decisions—which is precisely the kind of pathetic existence courts might lead under ancap—then courts have no options left but to follow libertarian principles of law.

Alice, based on the principle of self-ownership, voluntarily turned to a court to resolve a conflict with Bob. The court denies Alice self-ownership and issues a verdict stating that she has no right to own any property, so that Bob has the right of exclusive disposal over all disputed property, starting with Alice herself. Bob, in accordance with the court’s decision, appropriates all the property, including Alice, whom he keeps on a leash and beats for any disobedience.


Under ancap, there cannot be a sad girl on a leash!

What will stop Alice from sabotaging the court’s decision and actively resisting Bob, seeking any outside help? What will stop any outsider who, seeing a violation of the NAP, asks what is going on, is told it is the execution of a court decision, and responds that he doesn’t give a fuck?

Since the question itself postulates that it is ancap all around, it means the vast majority of relationships in this society are voluntary and market-based. This is precisely what everyone perceives as the norm, and any deviation from the norm must be hidden or very carefully justified.

One can ask “what would be the typical reaction under ancap to such-and-such a deviation from libertarian principles,” and in response, those typical reactions will be described, demonstrating the feedback mechanisms in an anarcho-capitalist society that make deviating from basic principles unprofitable. But it is pointless to frame the question as “how to fight mass deviations of courts from libertarian principles under ancap?” If they are mass deviations, it is no longer ancap, and one must look into why they are mass and which feedback mechanisms were lacking.

The question of whether a pure anarcho-capitalist society is stable has no theoretical solution today. Societies considered precursors to ancap in legal terms (Ireland, Iceland) were historically defeated by external forces, but this is not an argument for internal instability.

What are the drawbacks of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories?

анонимный вопрос

The main drawback of both libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories is that they do not exist.

There is an economic theory developed by the Austrian school of economics, which took on a relatively cohesive form thanks to Mises. This is praxeology, that is, the theory of human action; catallactics, that is, the theory of exchange; the theory of money, the theory of interventionism, the theory of the business cycle, and so on. The logic of the libertarian doctrine’s presentation is built upon economic theory, and it is used to verify various fantasies regarding the possible structure of society. Austrian economic theory does not provide quantitative forecasts and postulates the fundamental impossibility of doing so, which gives many followers of other schools reason to criticize it for uselessness in this regard.

There is a libertarian legal theory, also known as institutional or sociological. Russian libertarians generally tend to rely on it in their legal constructions, which is not least because it was developed by Vladimir Chetvernin, who is Russian and still alive. In the English-speaking world, natural law theories are more common.

There are various ethical libertarian teachings: some take natural rights as their basis, others derive ethics from the idea of a contract, and some rely on consequentialism—that is, evaluating actions by their consequences. In short, in the field of ethics, libertarians experience considerable fragmentation and instability.

As a result, libertarianism is a rather broad and pluralistic current of thought, which can be seen as both a plus (there is internal discussion, there is development, but there is also agreement on the fundamentals) and a minus (there is no unambiguous opinion on a number of specialized questions, some of which are quite serious—for example, whether an institution such as the state has a right to exist).


Cool little tree, and Chetvernin isn’t even here yet…

Update: after the post was already written, a video with Alexei Tereshchuk was released on SVTV, which deals precisely with similar issues.

Hey, Ancap-chan. Can you explain step-by-step and in detail how the judicial system will work in the wonderful Ancapistan? And how will private prisons make a profit?

anonymous question

In addition to this post, I also recommend reading all posts tagged “court,” at least this one and this one.

To start, let me roll out a bunch of definitions related to your question. Often, providing clear definitions is enough, and the answer to the question becomes completely obvious.

  • Property  – the relationship of an object to a subject, within which the subject disposes of the object at their discretion, and other subjects refrain from similar actions without the owner’s sanction.
  • Ancap – a system of relations between people based on the principle of self-ownership, that is, ownership of oneself. In common parlance, we will also call an “ancap” a person who is ready to adhere to this system of relations.
  • Law – a complex of practices for resolving conflicts between people.
  • Court – a legal institution within which a conflict between parties is resolved by a third party. Under ancap, a court can resolve conflicts only within the scope of the authority delegated to it by the parties to the conflict.
  • Prison – a legal institution within which the party that caused damage is isolated from the party that suffered damage. Under ancap, isolation can occur only with the sanction of the isolated party and only on terms agreed upon with them.

Now let’s provide a few examples of how law works in Ancapistan.

  1. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. They have stated their claims to each other, and after discussion, they agreed on who gets the disputed object, and who, for example, in exchange for waiving their claims, receives an agreed-upon compensation. The conflict is resolved.
  2. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. They have stated their claims to each other but have not reached an agreement. Then they agree with a third party in one way or another and delegate to them the authority to resolve the conflict. The court examines the situation, issues a decision, and the parties to the conflict execute the decision. The conflict is resolved.
  3. Two ancaps disagree with each other regarding which of them owns a certain object. In an attempt to exercise their property rights over the disputed object, the parties begin to cause each other some damage. Not wanting the conflict to escalate, one of the parties finds a shelter where they are out of reach of the second party, and after this, the parties begin to negotiate about a court. The court examines the situation, issues a decision, and the parties to the conflict execute the decision. The conflict is resolved.

The shelter appearing in the third example is, in essence, a prison. For the service of providing security during the period of imprisonment, the prison owner may charge a fee from the client, that is, from the person who wishes to obtain shelter.

I do not think that under ancap, the service of imprisonment will be in such high demand that it would be profitable to build special, well-protected structures to provide it. Most likely, the service of providing shelter will be provided decentrally and will be more declarative in nature.

A guy is running down the street, all disheveled and bruised, and another guy is behind him, very agitated and wanting to bruise the first one even more. The first guy rushes to me and asks for help. I shield him from the second one and suggest that he move toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. I have isolated one participant of the conflict from the other, and, in essence, this is no different from putting him in a pretrial detention center. The only thing that prevents the strong side in this conflict from continuing the crackdown on the weak side is the unwillingness to enter into a conflict with me as well. In the vast majority of situations, this is quite enough.

Will I take money for the service provided? I don’t know, it depends on the circumstances, depending on how much it distracts me from my own affairs.

In describing this example, I proceeded from the implicit assumption that ancap developed in a peaceful society through the gradual withering away of the state, which is why the described conflict, within which the need for shelter arose, looks quite “vegetarian.” Of course, if some Venezuela arrives at ancap through the complete and rapid bankruptcy of the state, then conflicts between people in the first stage will be significantly more numerous, and there may indeed arise a sufficiently stable, solvent demand for solid fortified shelters where the client would be provided with armed security services. But the probability of such a scenario seems very small to me.

Hi! How do things stand with animal rights in libertarianism? Can a person buy a kitten for the purpose of cruelly killing it? Can people create a community like Ancient Rome with the annual crucifixion of dogs?

anonymous question

What is the right to certain actions? It is a state of affairs in which others agree to tolerate these actions. In other words: you have the right to do something from the perspective of certain external subjects if they agree not to oppose these actions.

For instance, one kitten may have the right to sleep on a person’s face, while another may not even have the right to enter the person’s room.
Libertarianism is a legal doctrine asserting that no legal subject has the right to initiate violence against other legal subjects and their property with impunity. Thus, libertarianism reduces the question of acceptable treatment of animals to a question of legal personality. A stranger who has come from beyond the village outskirts—is he a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against him with impunity. A woman—is she a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against her with impunity. A child—is he a subject of law? An embryo—is it a subject of law? A dog—is it a subject of law?

In other words, purely logically, libertarianism can serve as a basis for defending animal rights—but only among those who recognize the legal personality of animals. As for those who consider animals to be objects, while remaining within the framework of the same libertarian doctrine, they may act toward the animals they own at their own discretion.
A problem arises when the positions of people who consider animals to be at least partially legal subjects (for example, at the level of children) clash with those of people who consider animals to be objects of property. The most stubborn disputes are always conducted precisely over definitions.

In essence, from the perspective of their opponents, animal rights advocates make claims against them for the suffering that the advocates themselves experience while realizing the suffering of animals in the hands of their tormentors. How should one react to such claims? As with any claims of an ethical rather than legal nature: take them into account, weigh the possible costs of fulfilling or not fulfilling the claim, and then act.

The better organized the groups applying moral pressure are, the sooner the corresponding morality becomes mainstream in society. So, those who nonetheless wish to crucify dogs without hindrance in a libertarian society need to start promoting this hobby of theirs in advance—under the banner of preserving cultural traditions, or some other way.

the kitty is sad(((

There is a rule in libertarianism that if there is no victim, there is no court. It turns out that it would be profitable for a bandit to destroy the entire family so that no victims remain. Something about this is wrong…

anonymous question

So, I live in my own house, and one of my neighbors killed another neighbor and his entire family. What happens to the price of my house because a dangerous psycho lives next door? It drops rapidly. Who am I after that? A victim.

In a situation where law is decentralized, your moral judgment can always become the basis for your actions. There is no one to forbid you from doing something, but the responsibility will be entirely yours.

If I have enough evidence of how my neighbor killed an entire family, and I kill him afterwards, then to whoever accuses me of this murder, I will show this evidence and explain that I had sufficient grounds to fear for my own life, as the deceased was far too unpredictable. And I’ll bring up the argument about the house price, just as a cherry on top.

And then we’ll see if I can make peace with the relatives and acquaintances of the deceased.

In the modern world, which is largely individualistic, moral evaluations of actions usually play a more significant role than kinship ties—after all, we no longer live in a clan society where the kin effectively acted as a single legal entity.

reconciliation of blood feud parties

You wrote that in the event that a child is subjected to domestic violence, a third party can only explain the child’s rights to them. But isn’t such treatment of children aggression? Why, in this case, are the actions of the parent/guardian not a violation of the NAP?

anonymous question

I wrote that an outsider can use the rich arsenal of peaceful resolution techniques with impunity, but applying violence or the threat of violence is at their own risk. If you see a fight, it would be appropriate to inquire whether it is a private fight before intervening. Similarly, upon seeing violence against a child, it is appropriate to ask the child if they need help. If there is no opportunity or desire to clarify this important point, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Yes, the guardian is using violence against the child and thereby violating the principle of non-aggression toward them. However, by manifesting aggression against the child’s guardian without the child’s sanction, you also violate the principle of non-aggression toward the child. And it is the child who will be the first one asked after this incident who exactly caused them harm. And you could very well turn out to be the one who caused that harm.

Your evidence regarding the extent of the violence against the child must be damn convincing for an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction both you and the child’s guardian recognize, to rule that guardianship rights should indeed transfer from the current guardian to another party wishing to obtain them, in a situation where the child does not demonstrate a desire to change guardians.

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

I would like to know how things would stand with zoophilia and other perversions (excluding people) under libertarianism?

Anonymous question

If you are interested for the purpose of figuring out whether you should buy shares in a company that produces accessories for zoophiles in advance, or conversely, whether you should dump these shares, then I have no good news for you: it is impossible to make quantitative forecasts here.

From the position of libertarianism, animals are objects, not subjects of law (the exception, as you correctly noted, is an animal such as a human, simply by virtue of the fact that he invented this very law). Therefore, any actions of an owner with his animal on his own territory, which do not cause direct damage to other people who are not co-owners of the animal or the territory, cannot be subjects of legal proceedings at all. It is another matter that such actions can be given a moral evaluation, and one can attempt, through shaming, to drive someone who treated an animal “wrongly” to the point of suicide, if one has enough talent and persistence.

But an interesting legal case occurred to me, which I would not venture to resolve unequivocally.

A cat owner lives in a certain condominium. According to the charter, the chairman of the condominium is elected in general elections by the members of the condominium, and to be elected, it is not strictly necessary to be a member of the condominium oneself. The cat was included in the ballot, won the election, and is now the chairman of the condominium. Then, the owner of the cat performs a sexual act with it without the latter’s consent and publishes a video. The question is: in this case, should the cat be considered the sole property of its owner, or an official who has been harmed?

Stubbs the cat, mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska