Тег: Liberalism

Democracy and liberalism will not limit a stationary bandit in violence

When discussing the issue of state violence and the restriction of freedom, one sometimes encounters the argument that this is not such a big problem, since in the modern world of democracies and liberalism, most states are limited in their ability to use force and violate the freedom of their citizens, and in this, they cannot cross a certain line. But in reality, no institutional factors prevent even the most democratic and liberal states from turning into brutal dictatorships. As long as they are stationary bandits and can “legitimately” use the instrument of violence, as long as they have agents capable of committing violent acts, and ordinary people have neither the right nor the possibility to resist violence, a tightening of social orders can be fully expected, provided there is only a pretext for it.

And recently, such a pretext appeared – the coronavirus pandemic. Of course, the pandemic must be fought, but the primary method chosen for this by many states was precisely violence and the forced restriction of freedoms. Moreover, there was no sense in such harsh measures, based on research on the effectiveness of different measures in the fight against the pandemic; also, using the example of Sweden, which has already returned to pre-COVID life, I showed how informing and encouraging less risky behavior ultimately yield better results than strict control and bans. Forceful coercion is a less effective tool in implementing any measures, unless coercion and the restriction of freedom is the goal in itself.

Before continuing the topic of COVID measures, I would like to recall one example of how states effectively destroyed the freedom of movement around the world by introducing passport and visa control. The pretext for this was the First and Second World Wars, during which states needed to control the movement of people. Was the control lifted after the wars ended, i.e., after the pretext for it disappeared? It was not! States took the opportunity to forever make any movement of people beyond the borders of their own “pens” strictly controlled.

During the coronavirus pandemic, borders turned out to be completely closed, but the essence of the matter is not only in that. In many countries, people were literally locked in their homes, deprived of work, and their movements were monitored, for example, using COVID apps. Now, a telling example of the implementation of such a policy is Australia, where people deprived of freedom literally have to fight with police, their movements are tracked by the state via a smartphone app, and violators of COVID norms face imprisonment and fines. Also, in many countries, police can easily beat and detain you, for example, for the lack of a mask or a vaccination passport (I am attaching a recent case from France to the post). This is also true for Russia, where police have already beaten and brutally detained people without masks many times.

Now I want to ask one question: is it possible to believe that after the pandemic ends, states will truly lift all restrictive measures and return to people the same freedom they had before? As far as I am concerned, relying on this would be great naivety. Of course, some freedoms will be returned, but at the same time, states will most likely retain some of the control. It is unlikely to be like in Sweden, where all COVID measures except for border ones have already been lifted, since this country did not rely on harsh coercive measures from the start. By the way, borders after the pandemic may also remain more controlled than before it, and it is quite likely that in this case, even Sweden will no longer be an exception. In general, one should not rely on the idea that for some miraculous reason states will not punish their citizens with police force, deprive them of freedom, and strictly control them simply because they are developed democracies. The question is not so much about political and social institutions as it is about the willingness and ability to commit violence.

Those who do not make it in time will be late

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Violence is a major problem leading to many negative externalities (including catastrophic ones), as well as to the maintenance of a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (which only further exacerbates the externalities of violence). That is why the fight against violence will soon become one of the leading directions in the development of society. And whoever solves the problem of violence will have a chance to significantly elevate the reputation and popularity of their cultural and economic agenda.

There are those who do not consider violence a major problem, and if this violence takes the form of state coercive force or serves the achievement of certain goals in general, then in their opinion, it becomes a beneficial and useful tool. Such a position is typically characteristic of conservatives, although it is not limited to them, and concerns in principle all supporters of violence as a tool for achieving goals, including those who support the existence of a monopolistic state power. Often, even classical liberals and supporters of a free market economy have nothing against the use of force.

But no matter how much they deny the negative aspects of violence, it would be foolish not to understand what would happen if someone else took on the task of eradicating it. Suppose that the supporters of such an idea, instead of cooperating with conservatives or marketeers who see no point in it, go to a hypothetical Bill Gates and manage to convince him they are right. By financing this initiative and ultimately eradicating violence, he would gain giant moral support from society, since for most people, violence is the greatest evil. Being a left-liberal and having acquired enormous authority, it would be enough for him to simply voice his opinion for people to listen. If he says that gay people cannot be refused the right to bake cakes, or that business must be socially responsible and donate a significant part of its income for the benefit of society, then it will happen, because the majority will be ready to follow the direction of such an authority.

Many certainly do not like such a scenario, but it is entirely possible. And if someone does not want this scenario to become a reality, they should support the idea of fighting violence by all possible means. The problem of violence will be solved in any case, either with the help of a hypothetical conservative, or without their participation. But in the second case, their socio-economic agenda will lose a significant part of its support in favor of the views of those who participate in solving the problem of violence. So I advise you to hurry in this matter and start promoting the ideas of non-violence now, regardless of who holds what views.

What is the difference between libertarianism (classlib) and modern “European Union” liberalism, and how do Ancap-chan and Bitarch view the latter, being ancaps and voluntarists?

Do you believe that social justice, democracy, general welfare, developed feminism, LGBT rights, juvenile justice, tolerance, reliable protection of human rights, liberty, equality, and fraternity are good or bad, and why?

Teanol (the question is accompanied by a donation of 0.00008010 BTC)

In classical liberalism, the state is considered an evil necessary for the protection of private property rights. In libertarianism, it is not considered necessary for this function; however, as long as it limits itself to this, its existence may be considered justified. In a conditional EU-style liberalism, the state is viewed as a tool for reconciling the interests of various strata of society, one that is more convenient than free market tools.

What is the convenience of the modern liberal state compared to the classical liberal one? Primarily, it is that being personally responsible for one’s own life is a rather frightening level of responsibility for many people. In the market, you must independently decide which property objects to insure, where, and under what conditions; how much and when to save for unforeseen circumstances or for an entirely predictable old age; which neighbors’ claims to satisfy and which to actively oppose, and if you oppose them, whether to do so independently or in a coalition. This is somewhat complicated; it’s better to spend one’s finite intellectual resources on skills that bring in money, and delegate all the aforementioned tasks, as far as possible, to those who are more savvy in these matters.

In a complex world where narrow specialists interact, a vast number of standardized solutions will inevitably be used, and a significantly smaller number of custom ones. The state is a standardized solution for any issues where it is not entirely clear who to offload them onto. And since such issues are constantly proliferating, the functionality of the state—even one consisting of entirely well-meaning liberal bureaucrats completely devoid of corrupt interests—will inevitably expand.

But as the state grows, its inefficiency inevitably grows as well. A Swiss Army knife with a couple hundred blades looks great in a store window, and you really want to buy this shiny toy, but in everyday life, the vast majority find it more convenient to have one very simple knife for most standard tasks, plus a couple of highly specialized ones that are used rarely, but when others are extremely inconvenient. A durable jumpsuit with a bunch of pockets looks exquisitely designed, but in a relaxed setting, a person throws on shorts and a t-shirt. It seems like you’d want to be able to call 911 and solve absolutely any problem, but in practice, this means you’ll get tired of fighting an automated answering machine, selecting menu items, and in the end, you’ll still be directed to the wrong specialist.

One would think that the more aggressive the environment, the tougher and more reliable the institutions should be. Therefore, on a small yacht in the middle of the sea, a single chain of command and clear functional duties for each crew member are quite appropriate, while on a beach, it’s enough that those wishing to play volleyball don’t trip over those sunbathing; otherwise, let complete anarchy reign and no one will care about anyone else. But the state cannot do that. It grew out of military needs, and it’s like a guy who returned from the front, suffers from PTSD, and is extremely outraged that people on the beach aren’t buttoned up to the top, aren’t marching in formation, and aren’t saluting. If you let him establish his order, everyone will have a hard time, even without unofficial hazing. And it’s no better when the state looks like a safety engineer. Fence off the volleyball court! Divide swimming zones by gender and age! Everyone put on life jackets! Organize the delivery of ice cream and lemonade! But the ice cream must be warm so that no one catches a cold, and the lemonade sugar-free, regardless of the fact that the ice cream has sugar. And then the state will see some kind of COVID, and the whole beach will go down the drain because everyone must stay home and wash their hands.

For Bitarkha, it is important that no one attacks anyone. Because one person will attack with fists, and another will sneeze on the first, and the whole world will die from a virus. So that no one dares to attack anyone, it is desirable that everyone be armed, and those who are not stopped by the sight of a weapon in others’ hands should be stopped some other way. It could be a bullet at the moment of attack, but it’s more humane to make them change their mind, perhaps, say, medicinally. Fortunately, Bitarkha only needs people to observe the NAP; otherwise, he would be indistinguishable from an adept of the COVID-fighting state. In order to live in a safe society, he is willing to pay well.

It is important to me that both I and the people around me are wealthy and free. For this, people must not be robbed or restricted, and they must not be extorted for all sorts of useless nonsense. For this, robbing and restricting must be dangerous, unprofitable, and unprestigious. And I, as a civilized and benevolent person, would of course prefer that people be stopped from robbing and regulating for reasons of lack of prestige, or at the very least, lack of profitability. If I have to ensure a threat to them as well, that will stress me out.

I apologize for the lack of a direct list, such as “I feel this way about social justice, that way about democracy,” and so on.

By the way, about urbanism…

The difference between a minarchist and a liberal

I’ve become a bit obsessed, and I want to resolve this contradiction in my head relatively quickly 😀 What is the difference between a minarchist and a liberal (besides the prohibition of aggressive violence in the case of the former)? After all, not every liberal, for example, is “for” state social support, or views the state itself absolutely positively. In general, I would be glad to hear a coherent answer.

анонимный вопрос

Generally speaking, of course, if you want to get an answer relatively quickly, the most reliable way is to accompany the question with a donation)

Minarchism is the result of the continuous development of classical liberal ideas, so it is difficult to draw a clear line between them that all proponents of liberal discourse would agree upon. I would approach the distinction from the standpoint of which basic values guide the person we are trying to label.

If the focus is primarily on the protection of private property and the social contract, through which a government is created to protect the institution of private property, then we are dealing with a classical liberal. They tend to evaluate the state precisely by the criterion of whether it effectively protects private property or not, and they are willing to pay some minimal, reasonable, and fair taxes (don’t ask!) provided that the work of protecting property is performed conscientiously. Otherwise, if a long series of abuses by the government leads them to assume that it has become a tyranny, they reserve the right to overthrow and reconstitute that government.

However, if a person primarily emphasizes non-aggression and the voluntary nature of forming a complex of government services—where the actions of private individuals may be forcibly regulated, but only on the condition of compensation for inconveniences, and where the government clearly positions itself as a service—then the person is guided not by Locke and the Founding Fathers, but by Robert Nozick, and in that case, they are more likely a minarchist.

Finally, a person may fundamentally deny the state, no matter how minimal it is, but believe that a number of social guarantees are necessary to maintain civil peace, and that reasonable people are quite capable of funding them on a voluntary basis because it is ultimately in their interest. In that case, this is a left-market anarchist; such people exist too.

From left to right: Rawls, Nozick, Locke